Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (US 5,591,522 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Sakai discloses an insulating tape used to form a flat cable used in electronic wiring (i.e., a flexible flat cable comprising a flexible flat cable reinforcing tape), the flat cable depicted as including conductor terminals, and the insulating tape comprising, laminated in order, a polyester film 12 (insulating film), an anchor coat (not depicted), and an adhesive layer 11 (i.e., an insulating film (A), a layer of an anchor coat (B), and a layer of adhesive (C), such that the layer of the anchor coat (B) is between the insulating film (A) and the layer of adhesive (C)) (Sakai: col. 2, lines 24-31; col. 9, lines 40-45; col. 10, lines 21-26; Fig. 4(a)-4(b)). The adhesive layer has a thickness of 0.03 to 0.2 mm (30 to 200 microns), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 to 30 microns, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05) (Sakai: col. 2, lines 57-60). Similarly, the anchor coat has a thickness of 0.1 to 30 microns, which overlaps the claimed range of 15 to 50 microns (Sakai: col. 3, lines 45-48). Regarding the claimed hot melt adhesive, it is noted that the adhesive material of Sakai (i.e., a polyolefin such as LDPE) is disclosed in the present specification as a hot-melt adhesive material (i.e., paragraph [0048] of the present specification PGPub defines hot melt adhesives as including polyolefin adhesives), though, it is further noted that Sakai demonstrates its adhesive as laminated via heat (i.e., as a hot-melt adhesive) (Sakai: col. 3, lines 35-39; col. 5, lines 7-17; col. 6, lines 62-65). Regarding the claimed phrase “wherein the conductor terminals are reinforced by the flexible cable reinforcing tape”, it is noted that his language is rather broad, and the present specification does not further limit the scope of this phrase. As best understood, the conductive terminals of the cable of Sakai are reinforced by the insulating tape, as the insulation tape prevents insulation failure and crack formation, while also providing physical impact resistance (i.e., the insulating tape of Sakai prevents deterioration of the conductive terminals’ capabilities by preventing the entire cable from insulation failure and crack formation, and further, the insulating tape can prevent impact from being transmitted to the conductive terminals) (Sakai: col. 1, lines 16-38; Fig. 4(b)). In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that the conductive terminals are depicted as immediately adjacent to / in contact with the edge of the conductive terminals (i.e., and therefore, protective properties are endowed to at least the edges of the conductive terminals) (Sakai: Fig. 4(b)).
With regards to claim 5, the anchor coating thickness of 0.1 to 30 microns disclosed in Sakai overlaps the claimed range of 10 to 50 microns, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (see above discussion).
Claims 2-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kiyoshi et al (JP2001222919A).
With regards to claim 2, Sakai discloses a flexible flat cable reinforcing tape as applied to claim 1 above. Sakai does not appear to disclose the anchor coat as having a composition comprising 100 parts by mass of a thermoplastic saturated copolyester resin, and 3 to 25 parts by mass of a compound having two or more isocyanate groups per molecule.
Kiyoshi discloses a heat seal tape (reinforcing tape) having excellent flexibility and designed for a flat cable, the heat seal tape comprising an anchor coat layer 2 and a heat seal layer 3, laminated in order (Kiyoshi: Figs. 1-2; para. [0012]-[0019]). The anchor coat layer of Kiyoshi comprises a combination of a thermoplastic saturated polyester formed from multiple dihydric alcohol monomers (i.e., rendering the polyester a copolyester) and a multifunctional compound having between two and six isocyanate groups (Kiyoshi: para. [0014]-[0015]). The amount of multifunctional compound ranges from 0.5 to 10 parts by mass per 100 parts of polyester resin, which overlaps the claimed range of 3 to 25 parts mass of the multifunctional compound per 100 parts polyester resin (Kiyoshi: para. [0016]). Sakai and Kiyoshi are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of tapes comprising a hot melt adhesive layer and an anchor coat layer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected the composition of Kiyoshi for the anchor coat material of Sakai, in order to provide improved heat resistance, durability, and blocking resistance (Kiyoshi: abstract). The ranges taught in Kiyoshi overlaps the claimed ranges (i.e., Kiyoshi’s 0.5 to 10 parts by mass of compound having two or more isocyanate groups per molecule compared to 3 to 25 parts by mass of the present claim, and Kiyoshi’s two to six isocyanate groups compared to the range of two or more of the present claim) (see above discussion). Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 3, Sakai teaches a tape as applied to claim 1 above. Although the tape of Sakai comprises a hot-melt adhesive, Sakai does not appear to teach selection of a thermoplastic saturated copolyester adhesive for the hot-melt adhesive. However, it is noted that the heat seal layer of Kiyoshi comprises a combination of a thermoplastic saturated polyester formed from multiple dihydric alcohol monomers (i.e., rendering the polyester a copolyester) (Kiyoshi: para. [0014] and [0018]-[0019]). Selection of these materials for the hot-melt adhesive of Sakai would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill from the viewpoint of enhancing heat resistance, durability, and blocking resistance (Kiyoshi: abstract).
With regards to claim 6, the anchor coat of Kiyoshi comprises 0.5 to 10 parts by mass of a compound having two to six isocyanate groups (component b2) per 100 parts by mass of the polyester resin (component b1) (see above discussion). The end point of 10 parts by mass is substantially close to the endpoint of more than 10 parts by mass. There exists an infinitely small distance between the claimed endpoint and the endpoint of Kiyoshi. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed and prior art ranges do not overlap but are merely close. In the present case, the proportions are so close that one skilled in the art would have expected to amount taught by Kiyoshi to provide the same properties as the claimed endpoint. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shanai et al (US 2014/0158398 A1).
With regards to claim 4, Sakai discloses a heat seal tape as applied to claim 1 above. Sakai does not appear to disclose a softening temperature of 95⁰C or higher.
Shanai discloses an adhesive resin composition used in forming a film for covering a flat cable, the film having structure and function similar to that of the claimed invention and Sakai, in that it comprises a base film, an anchor coat, and an adhesive layer laminated in order, and further in that the film is used to protect a flat cable from high temperatures while remaining flexible (Kiyoshi: Figs. 1 and 2; para. [0003]-[0005] and [0064]). Sakai and Shanai are analogous art because they are related to the same field of endeavor of adhesive films for protecting flat cables. Shanai teaches adjusting the softening point of the film material based on the needs one of ordinary skill has, with higher softening temperatures leading to difficult hot melt processing, and lower softening temperature leading to worse heat resistance (Shanai: para. [0046]). Effectively, then, Shanai acknowledges softening point as a result-effective variable, and Shanai provides motivation to one of ordinary skill to adjust the softening point of the film material, based on a desired balance between hot melt processing and heat resistance (Shanai: para. [0046]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the softening temperature of the tape of Sakai, based on the instruction of Shanai, in order to achieve a film having ideal hot melt processing and heat resistance (Shanai: para. [0046]). See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that the claim is only drawn to a softening temperature of 95⁰C or higher in the reinforcing tape, meaning that any of the layers of the tape may have the required softening temperature to meet the claim. Since the insulating film of Sakai is designed to have an insulating function, one of ordinary skill would tend towards higher softening temperatures for the insulating film of Sakai, since heat resistance is particularly desirable, and the insulating film is not melt processed (See above discussion). This establishes a tendency for one of ordinary skill to select a higher softening temperature, which is encompassed by the claimed range of 95⁰C or higher.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Kiyoshi as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Shanai et al.
With regards to claim 7, Sakai and Kiyoshi teach a tape as applied to claim 2 above. However, Sakai and Kiyoshi do not appear to teach a non-crystalline component within the anchor coat.
Shanai teaches that, in the field of adhesives for flat cables, amorphous (i.e., non-crystalline) resins are widely used for adhesion purposes, and amorphous resins are known to have improved adhesion (Shanai: para. [0003] and [0009]). In particular, Shanai teaches an amorphous thermoplastic polyester-based resin which has improved heat resistance, flame retardancy, and adhesion, compared to amorphous and non-crystalline resins known in the art (Shanai: para. [0016]). Sakai, Kiyoshi, and Shanai are analogous art because they are related to the same field of endeavor of adhesive films for protecting flat cables. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected an amorphous (i.e., non-crystalline) component to incorporate into the anchor coat of Sakai and Kiyoshi, in order to provide adhesion, and since such resins are well-known in the art (see above discussion). However, that Shanai discovered an amorphous resin having particularly improved adhesion, heat resistance, and flame retardancy would further obviate the selection of an amorphous component (see above discussion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria V. Ewald can be reached on (571) 272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights