DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026, directed towards the rejections of Claims 1 and 18, have been fully considered and are addressed below. All rejections set forth in the previous action have been maintained in this action.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues there is no motivation to modify the stainless steel terminal of Yoshikawa (primary reference) by adding a gold plating layer taught by McCauley (secondary reference). This argument is not persuasive.
McCauley specifically teaches advantages to plating a stainless steel terminal with a conductive material (“conductive terminals 180 are made from stainless steel, with a coating of a conductive material, such as gold, having better electrical conductivity than stainless steel and high temperature oxidation and corrosion resistance,” Col. 13, lines 43-50). McCauley’s disclosure provides sufficient motivation to coat the stainless steel terminal of Yoshikawa, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success with the coated terminal in the battery of Yoshikawa.
Applicant argues modified Yoshikawa’s coating on the terminal would be “severely degraded, if not entirely removed, during the pressing/deformation process of the output terminal,” and states the battery assembly process of Yoshikawa would “severely degrade any plating, especially a gold plating, on the output terminal 11 and particularly at the contact surfaces thereof, dissuading one skilled in the art from a pre-installation application of a gold plating.” This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument is based on assumptions that are not taught or suggested by Yoshikawa or
McCauley. Although Yoshikawa does teach compression of the terminal during battery assembly, Yoshikawa does not teach away from using a coated or multi-layered terminal. Applicant’s envisioning of a terminal coating being degraded or stripped may be a possible outcome, but is not guaranteed to occur, for several reasons. For example, in modified Yoshikawa’s coated terminal, neither Applicant nor Examiner possess the knowledge of how thick the plating layer is compared to the inner layer. Modified Yoshikawa’s coated terminal could have a plating layer thickness that could be deformed but still not expose the stainless steel inner layer. Additionally, since there is more than one method known in the art to coat a metal surface with another metal (electroplating, electroless plating, immersion plating, PVD, plasma spray, etc.), potentially resulting in varying degrees of adhesion between the coating layer and inner layer, neither Applicant nor Examiner can conclusively say the force of Yoshikawa’s compression would be large enough to separate or remove the coating from the inner layer. Examiner maintains the modification of Yoshikawa by McCauley is proper, as the combination has sufficient motivation to try, with a reasonable expectation of success.
A claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (MPEP § 2143E).
Regarding the 35 USC § 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of Claim 18, Applicant argues “the same reference numerals designate the same elements,” which does not address the Examiner’s basis for each rejection.
The basis for the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection of Claim 18 is that the combination of limitations set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 18 creates a combination of embodiments not supported by the instant disclosure. Claim 1 requires “a diameter of a bottommost surface of the terminal plate is smaller than a diameter of the opening in the cap plate” (see lines 18-19 of Claim 1). Applicant discloses a first terminal plate 420 in Fig. 3, and second terminal plate 430 in Fig. 5, where a diameter of a bottommost surface of the terminal plate can be observed. However, the written description does not disclose or show a “third terminal plate” for the embodiment in Fig. 7. The Claim 1 limitation “a diameter of a bottommost surface of the terminal plate is smaller than a diameter of the opening in the cap plate” is only specific to the embodiments of Figs. 3 and 5, and is not generic to all embodiments.
However, Claim 18 (a dependent of Claim 1) recites “a third plating portion extending from the first plating portion and covering a lower surface of the cap plate,” which is a limitation specific to Fig. 7 (see third plating portion 413 in Fig. 7), but not disclosed for the embodiments of Figs. 3 and 5. Even if one were to assume a third plating portion is present in Figs. 3 and 5, the supposed third plating portion does not cover a lower surface of the cap plate as required by the Claim 18.
The resulting terminal structure of Claim 18, wherein a bottommost surface of the terminal plate is smaller than a diameter of the opening in the cap plate (only present in Figs. 3 and 5), AND a third plating portion extending from the first plating portion and covering a lower surface of the cap plate (only present in Fig. 7), are not shared among one embodiment, and therefore are not supported by the instant disclosure.
Applicant’s embodiment of a terminal portion
Claim 1 limitation “a diameter of a bottommost surface of the terminal plate is smaller than a diameter of the opening in the cap plate” present in embodiment?
Claim 18 limitation “a third plating portion extending from the first plating portion and covering a lower surface of the cap plate” present in embodiment?
Fig. 3
YES
NO
Fig. 5
YES
NO
Fig. 7
NO
YES
The basis for the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of Claim 18 is not due to clarity of the claim language. Instead, the rejection is because the structure created by the combination of Claims 1, 8, and
18 conflicts with the instant disclosure, and therefore the claimed structure is indefinite.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty [MPEP 2173.03].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 comprises the limitation “a third plating portion extending from the first plating portion and covering a lower surface of the cap plate” on lines 7-8 of the claim. Examiner notes this limitation is most supported by [0086-0090] of the instant specification and instant Fig. 7. See [0090]:
[0090] The first plating portion 411 fills the opening 310 and directly contacts the first coating layer 321, the second plating portion 412 directly contacts the second coating layer 322 by covering an upper surface of the cap plate 300 from the first plating portion 411, and the third plating portion 413 directly contacts the third coating layer 323 by covering a lower surface of the cap plate 300 from the first plating portion 411. The first plating portion 411, the second plating portion 412, and the third plating portion 413 are integrally formed, but plating layer 410 is not limited thereto. At least one of the first plating portion 411, the second plating portion 412, and the third plating portion 413 may contain a different conductive material than the other portion(s). For example, at least one of the first plating portion 411, the second plating portion 412, and the third plating portion 413 may be formed as a plating seed layer and the other portion(s) may be formed as a plating growth layer, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto.
Applicant’s Fig. 7 shows a third plating portion 413 extending from the first plating portion 411, and overlaps with a lower surface of the cap plate 210:
PNG
media_image1.png
302
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
17/646,037 – Fig. 7
However, Claim 1 requires “a diameter of a bottommost surface of the terminal plate is smaller than a diameter of the opening in the cap plate” (see lines 18-19 of Claim 1), which is not supported by Fig. 7. Applicant does not disclose the embodiment of Fig. 7 comprises a terminal plate, and Fig. 7 does not show the boundary of a terminal plate in the terminal portion. The combination of limitations in Claims 1 and 18 are not supported by [0086-0090] and Fig. 7.
Applicant’s alternate embodiments in Figs. 3 and 5 show “a diameter of a bottommost surface of the terminal plate is smaller than a diameter of the opening in the cap plate” as required by Claim 1. Regarding the Claim 18 limitation “a third plating portion extending from the first plating portion and covering a lower surface of the cap plate,” even if it were assumed that Figs. 3 and 5 have a third plating portion, those portions do not protrude far enough to “cover” a lower surface of the cap plate. Figs. 3 and 5 potentially show a third plating portion disposed below the cap plate, and a portion of the third plating portion directly contact the third coating layer (323), but the third coating layer is the component that “covers a lower surface of the cap plate” as claimed. See annotated Figs. 3 and 5:
PNG
media_image2.png
368
1106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
17/646,037 – Annotated Fig. 3 (left) and Fig. 5 (right)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The Claim 18 limitation “a third plating portion extending from the first plating portion and covering a lower surface of the cap plate” is not supported by the instant disclosure for the combination of Claims 1, 8, and 18. Therefore the structure set forth by Claim 18 is indefinite.
For the purpose of this action, the Claim 18 limitation “a third plating portion extending from the first plating portion and covering a lower surface of the cap plate,” will be examined as “a third plating portion extending from the first plating portion and disposed below the cap plate” (a limitation similar to Claim 7) and also examined as “a third plating portion extending from the first plating portion and covering a portion of the third coating layer” (a limitation distinct from Claim 7).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 7, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa, JP 2005056648 A, and further in view of McCauley et al., US 7563118 B1 and Lee et al., US 20210328290 A1 (all references cited in previous action).
Regarding Claims 1 and 17, Yoshikawa discloses a cell (cylindrical battery [0017], Figs. 1-3) comprising:
an electrode assembly (electrode assembly [0017-0018]), comprising a first electrode (negative electrode 3 [0018], Fig. 2), a second electrode (positive electrode 2 [0018], Fig. 2), and a separator between the first electrode and the second electrode (separator 4 [0018], Fig. 2);
a case accommodating the electrode assembly (battery case 1 [0017], Fig. 2) and connected to the first electrode (case 1 serves as the negative output terminal [0017]), the case having an opening exposing the electrode assembly (case 1 has an open top [0017], Fig. 2 );
a cap plate coupled with the case and covering an outer region of the opening in the case (disk-shaped lid 7 that closes the top opening of the battery case 1, laser welded [0020-0021], Figs. 2-3), the cap plate having an opening exposing a central region of the opening in the case (lid 7 has a circular terminal mounting hole 13 formed in the center thereof [0021], Figs. 2-3) and comprising an insulation layer coated on a surface thereof corresponding to the opening in the cap plate (insulating packing 9 [0024-0031]) and
a terminal portion connected with the second electrode (positive terminal 11 [0018-0021]) and bonded in an insulated manner to the cap plate (positive terminal 11 is adhered to insulating packing 9 [0024]), the terminal portion comprising:
a terminal plate in the opening in the cap plate (terminal 11 is fitted into the terminal mounting hole 13 [0008, 0026], Figs. 1-3), the terminal plate comprising stainless steel (positive electrode terminal 11 comprises a shaft body made of stainless steel plate [0022]),
wherein a diameter of a bottommost surface of the terminal plate is smaller than a diameter of the opening in the cap plate (the outer diameter of the shaft 17 is set to be smaller than the inner diameter of the terminal mounting hole 13 [0022], the outer diameter of the shaft 17 is “d2” in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
488
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
870
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yoshikawa – Fig. 1 (left) and Fig. 2 (right)
Yoshikawa does not disclose the claimed plating layer as required by Claim 1. However, McCauley teaches benefits to coating a stainless steel terminal with a plating layer.
McCauley teaches conductive terminals of an electrical connector can be made from stainless steel, and the stainless steel should be coated in a material such a gold. McCauley teaches the gold coating has “better electrical conductivity than stainless steel and high temperature oxidation and corrosion resistance” (Col. 13, lines 43-50).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to coat Yoshikawa’s stainless steel terminal plate with a gold plating layer, in the cell of Yoshikawa, as McCauley teaches the gold coating has higher conductivity compared to stainless steel.
The terminal portion of Modified Yoshikawa would have Yoshikawa’s terminal 11 coated in gold, per the teaching of McCauley. Modified Yoshikawa’s terminal plate therefore teaches the Claim 1 limitations “a plating layer entirely surrounding the terminal plate, between the terminal plate and the insulation layer” (see gold coating in Annotated Fig 1), “bonded to the insulation layer of the cap plate” (Yoshikawa, positive terminal 11 is adhered to insulating packing 9 [0024]) and “the plating layer completely fills the opening in the cap plate” (see Annotated Fig 1):
PNG
media_image5.png
394
710
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Yoshikawa – Annotated Fig. 1
Although modified Yoshikawa teaches the cell is a cylindrical cell, modified Yoshikawa does not disclose the cell is “a button cell” as required by Claim 1, or “a ratio of a height to a diameter of the button cell is 1 or less” as required by Claim 17. However, these limitations are taught by Lee.
Lee teaches a cylindrical cell may have a “button cell” shape, wherein an electrode assembly width is greater than the assembly height in a winding axis direction ([0024], Figs. 1 and 3). Lee teaches a button cell is compatible with a rivet-style terminal ([0034-0036], Fig. 3). Examiner notes the rivet-style terminal is shared by Lee and modified Yoshikawa.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to shorten Yoshikawa’s cell height to be a button cell, wherein a ratio of a height to a diameter of the button cell is 1 or less, as Lee teaches the button cell with the claimed height ratio is compatible with rivet-style terminals.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Yoshikawa discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoshikawa discloses the terminal plate (Yoshikawa, terminal 11) further comprises a flange portion covering the opening in the cap plate and being on the cap plate (Yoshikawa, outer diameter of the head 16 is set to be larger than the inner diameter of the terminal mounting hole 13 [0022], Fig. 1), and wherein the plating layer is coated on a surface of the terminal plate (Yoshikawa’s terminal 11 coated with gold, see Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yoshikawa discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoshikawa discloses the plating layer (McCauley, gold coating) closes and seals between the terminal plate and the cap plate (Yoshikawa, neck portion 22 and the shaft portion 17 of terminal 11 are adhered to the insulating packing 9 [0024]; the space between the positive electrode terminal 11 and the terminal mounting hole 13 of the lid 7 is tightly sealed by the insulating packing 9 [0035]; insulating packing 9 and gold coating layer are disposed between the terminal plate 11 and lid 7 to seal any gap).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Yoshikawa discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoshikawa discloses the plating layer (McCauley, gold coating) comprises:
a first plating portion filling the opening in the cap plate (see Annotated Fig. 1 for coating on shaft portion 17, located in the terminal mounting hole 13);
a second plating portion extend from the first plating portion and covering an upper surface of the cap plate (see Annotated Fig. 1 for coating on disk-shaped head 16 and neck portion 22, periphery of head 16 overlaps with lid 7); and a
third plating portion extending from the first plating portion to below a lower surface of the cap plate (see Annotated Fig. 1 for portion of coating extending below lid 7).
PNG
media_image6.png
396
810
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Yoshikawa – Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 14, modified Yoshikawa discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoshikawa discloses the electrode assembly further comprises:
a first electrode tab extended from the first electrode and welded to the case (Yoshikawa, negative electrode conductive tab 6 welded to the inner surface of the battery case 1 [0018, 0040]); and
a second electrode tab extended from the second electrode and welded to the terminal portion (Yoshikawa, positive electrode conductive tab 5 is welded to the lower end surface of the shaft portion 17 of the positive electrode terminal 11 [0018, 0039]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Yoshikawa discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoshikawa discloses the case (Yoshikawa, case 1) and the cap plate (Yoshikawa, lid 7) have the same polarity as the first electrode (Yoshikawa, battery case 1 serves as the negative output terminal [0017], battery case 1 and lid 7 are welded together [0021, 0040]), and
the terminal portion has the same polarity as the second electrode (Yoshikawa, positive electrode conductive tab 5 is welded to the positive electrode terminal 11 [0018, 0039]).
Claims 8-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Yoshikawa as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiraishi, US 20170012251 A1.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Yoshikawa discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoshikawa discloses the insulation layer (Yoshikawa, insulating packing 9) comprises:
a first coating layer coated on a side surface of the cap plate that forms the opening in the cap plate (see Annotated Fig. 1 for section of cylindrical portion 29 of the insulating packing 9);
a second coating layer coated on an upper surface of the cap plate around the opening in the cap plate (see Annotated Fig. 1 for flange portion 28 of insulating packing 9 on seat 14 of lid 7); and
a third coating layer coated on a lower surface of the cap plate around the opening in the cap plate (see Yoshikawa Fig. 3 and Annotated Fig. 1 for tapered portion 31 on lower end of insulating packing 9 “around the opening” and partially “on a lower surface of the cap plate”).
PNG
media_image7.png
708
1378
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Yoshikawa – Annotated Fig. 1 (left) and Fig. 3 (right)
Examiner notes the outer edge of the tapered portion 31 protrudes horizontally, and is disposed on a lower surface of the cap plate:
PNG
media_image8.png
592
696
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Yoshikawa – Annotated Fig. 1
Should modified Yoshikawa’s tapered portion 31 not teach the limitation “a third coating layer
coated on a lower surface of the cap plate” with sufficient specificity, the following rejection in view of Shiraishi also applies:
Shiraishi teaches a resin insulator integrally formed around a rivet terminal (first gasket 220 [0104, 0117-0124], Figs. 4, 7, and Annotated Fig. 15). Shiraishi teaches the insulator comprises a first coating layer (cylindrical portion 223 [0209]), second coating layer (projecting portion 222 [0121]), and third coating layer (first connecting portion 224 and accommodating portion 225 [0212-0214]). Shiraishi teaches the first gasket 220 sandwiches the lid body 110 with the flat plate portion 221 and the accommodating portion 225 ([0213]). Shiraishi further teaches by forming the accommodating portion 225 in the first connecting portion 224 of the first gasket 220, it is possible to make the removal of the first gasket 220 from the lid body 110 difficult or to enhance airtightness ([0214]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrally form the first, second, and third coating layers of modified Yoshikawa’s insulation layer, and have the third coating layer disposed on a lower surface of the cap plate, as Shiraishi teaches sandwiching the lid body between the second the third coating layers secures the insulation layer and increases airtightness of the cell.
PNG
media_image9.png
666
1296
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Shiraishi – Annotated Fig. 15
The third coating layer of modified Yoshikawa would extend along the lower surface of the cap
plate, per the teaching of Shiraishi:
PNG
media_image10.png
526
658
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Modified Yoshikawa – Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 9, modified Yoshikawa discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoshikawa discloses the first, second, and third coating layers are integrally formed (Yoshikawa Fig. 3; Shiraishi [0203-0214]; See Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Yoshikawa discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoshikawa discloses the second coating layer is coated on only a part of the upper surface of the cap plate (Yoshikawa, lower part of the flange portion 28 of the insulating packing 9 can be fitted into the seat 14 of the lid 7 [0012]), and the third coating layer is coated on only a part of the lower surface of the cap plate (see Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image11.png
502
610
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Modified Yoshikawa – Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 11, modified Yoshikawa discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoshikawa discloses the plating layer (McCauley, gold coating) directly contacts the first coating layer, the second coating layer, and the third coating layer (see Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image12.png
484
597
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Modified Yoshikawa – Annotated Fig. 1 with plating layer/coating layer contact areas identified
Regarding Claim 12, modified Yoshikawa discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoshikawa discloses the first coating layer is completely covered by the plating layer, and a part of the second coating layer and a part of the third coating layer do not overlap the plating layer:
PNG
media_image13.png
482
892
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Modified Yoshikawa – Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 18, modified Yoshikawa discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoshikawa discloses the plating layer (McCauley, gold coating) comprises:
a first plating portion filling an area between the opening in the cap plate and the first coating layer (Annotated Fig. 1);
a second plating portion extend from the first plating portion and covering an upper surface of the second coating layer (Annotated Fig. 1); and
“a third plating portion extending from the first plating portion and disposed below the cap plate” (Annotated Fig. 1):
PNG
media_image14.png
594
1068
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Modified Yoshikawa – Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding the limitation “a third plating portion extending from the first plating portion and covering a portion of the third coating layer,” this limitation is taught by modified Yoshikawa. Modified Yoshikawa teaches an outer diameter “d1” at the upper end of the terminal shaft 17 is crimped, causing d1 to be lesser than an outer diameter “d2” at the lower end of the shaft (Yoshikawa, [0008-0013], Fig. 1). Modified Yoshikawa teaches crimping the shaft portion 17 outwardly expands the diameter of the shaft and creates an obliquely upward tilt at the lower end, which establishes a tight seal on the lid (Yoshikawa, [0035-0036]), and meets the limitation “covering a portion of the third coating layer”:
PNG
media_image15.png
478
952
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Modified Yoshikawa – Annotated Fig. 1
Examiner observes even though the d2 value increases at the bottom of the shaft 17, modified Yoshikawa teaches a d2 value remains smaller than the inner diameter of the terminal mounting hole 13 (Yoshikawa, [0008]), thus satisfying the Claim 1 requirement “a diameter of a bottommost surface of the terminal plate is smaller than a diameter of the opening in the cap plate.”
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Yoshikawa as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Muroya et al., US 20190189998 A1.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Yoshikawa discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoshikawa discloses the insulation layer is made of a resin (Yoshikawa, [0026), but does not disclose the insulation layer “comprises a ceramic material” as required by Claim 13. However, this limitation is taught by Muroya.
Muroya teaches an external insulating member made of resin disposed between a positive electrode terminal and a sealing plate ([0041, 0117]). Muroya teaches the resin insulating member may further include ceramic, and ceramic is electrically insulating and heat-resistant ([0021-0024, 0109-0112]). Muroya teaches even if the battery reaches a temperature high enough to melt the resin portion of the insulation member, the ceramic portion of the insulating member will not melt, and thus protect the battery from short circuiting ([0021-0024, 0105-0112]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add ceramic to modified Yoshikawa’s resin insulation layer, as Muroya teaches ceramic is electrically insulating and resistant to higher temperatures than resin.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721