DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A, in the reply filed on December 25, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn as directed to a non-elected process. Applicants’ have elected species A. Having not identified prior art directed to Species A, Species B has been fully examined for patentability.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 requires a facing portion that is positioned closer to the center of the through hole in the width direction than the electrode. Claim 1 further requires the facing portion to be disposed “facing, in the width direction, a portion of the electrode on one end side in the axial direction.” It is unclear what constitutes “one end side in the axial direction”. One end side of the electrode, the through-hole, the substrate, or another feature? For purposes of examination one end side will be considered to be the one end side of the electrode nearest where the facing is provided on the substrate.
Claim 9 limits the substrate based on a first surface on “the one end side of the though hole in the axial direction” however there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “a one end side of the though hole in the axial direction”. Claim 1 includes “one end side in the axial direction” but it is unclear in relation to what feature the “one end side in the axial direction” is defined.
Claim 9 requires the electrode to be provided in the through hole in the first portion and requires the facing portion to be provided in the second portion in a manner extending toward the one end of the through hole. The one end of the through hole is undefined and the direction of extension unclear. Does it extend in an axial direction away from the electrode (opposite as depicted in applicants’ figures) or does it extend “upward” in the axial direction which would be from the second portion into the first portion (inconsistent with the facing portion being “provided in the second portion”). For purposes of examination the facing portion will be considered extend more towards the center of the through hole than the electrode and extend axially to at least partially overlap the electrode in the axial direction (creating the facing portion).
Claims 2-14 are rejected as depending from claim 1 as rejected above, but are not in-and-of-themselves found to be indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Iwasaki et al. (US Patent 6,953,938) disclose a deflector comprising a substrate (#202), an opening (#200), considered a through hole, and electrodes (#206a,b). The electrodes are provided in the opening and extend in the axial direction. The deflector may further include insulating layers (#208a,b)(noted relative to applicants’ claim 11). Figure 4A and 4B and col. 8 lines 1-14.
Iwasaki et al. do not disclose a facing portion provided on the substrate disposed at a portion closer to the center of the opening in a width direction than is the electrode, and facing, in the width direction, a portion of the electrode. Further there is insufficient motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the deflector structure of Iwasaki et al. to include a facing portion configured as claimed. Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) but are otherwise found to distinguish over the prior art. Claims 15-20 are not currently in condition for rejoinder as they do not require each and every feature of an allowable claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784