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 .
Election/Restrictions
The traversal “the restriction” mailed on 6/11/25 (see Applicant’s Remarks about pages 1-3) has been carefully considered and found to be persuasive. The Examiner agreed that claim 1 is generic to both species I-II therefore the restriction between species I-II (claims 1-18) has been withdrawn, however the apparatus species III (claim 19) is stand restricted for reason provided from record.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/11/25.
An Office Action on the merits of claims 1-18 as follows:
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is in claim formats. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed subject matter as represented in claim 1-18 entirely must be shown (in process forms) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since the scope of the claims directed to method of manufacturing an electronic component (see preamble of claim 1) which associated with “an electronic component body” and other claims such as claim 5 directed to “a multiple electronic component body”.
Therefore, it is suggested the phrase:” an electronic component body “(claim 1, line 3) should be updated to: --" an electronic component body of multiple electronic component bodies”—for clarity of the method claim invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
Since the scope of the claims 2-18 directed to “method of making an electronic component “ with assist by a numbers of outside elements such as: “ a solid cutter or fluid cutter” (see claim 1, lines 9-10; “a paste removing member”(claim 2, line 2); “a jig” (claims 5-6, lines 2, 5; claim 6); “the jig” (claims 7-8, line 2); “a paste removing member” (claim 8-11, 15-18); “a jig” (claims 13-14 , line 2, respectively). Therefore, the preamble of the claim 1 should be updated to:
--"An electronic component manufacturing method operatively associated with an electronic apparatus comprising:”--
The phrase: “a solid cutter or fluid cutter” (see claim 1, lines 9-10) should be changed to: --"a solid cutter or fluid cutter of the apparatus” --, for clarity of the method claim format.
“a paste removing member” (claim 2, line 2) should also be updated to: --" a paste removing member of the apparatus” --.
Similar to suggestion above applied to claims 3-18, respectively.
“whether or not the phrase: “(M is an integer greater than or equal to 2)” (see claim 7, line 2) is part of the claim limitation? since it is in wrong format and should be deleted or rewritten to -- “; wherein the M is an integer greater than or equal to 2” and insert at the end of claim 7 after term “bodies” (about line 6 of claim 7)
Similar to claim 7 occurrence in claims 8, 13-14 (see similar suggestion as noted in claim 7 above).
“(M x N)” (claim 13, line 4) should be updated to: -- “the M electronic component bodies multiple to N electronic component bodies (M x N)” --, For clarity of the claim
“(M x N)” (claims 14-16 and 18, respectively should be further define as: --”M x N”--
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt