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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 09/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II-V, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/08/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 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 2 recites “the insulating layer contains the carbon particles in an amount of higher than 0.01 vol %” 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. The originally filed specification in Paragraph [0063] states “[i]n the case where the content of the carbon particles 305 is 1 vol % or higher, a chain-like structure in which the aggregates 302 are further loosely connected to each other is formed, as a result of which a long-distance conductive path (percolation path) is formed. In this case, the resistance of the insulating layer 13 decreases drastically, and eddy current loss and circuit loss due to a parallel conductive path between electrodes may occur. Moreover, in the case where the content of the carbon particles 305 is 1 vol % or higher, the coating solution becomes highly viscous due to the carbon particles 305 having a high specific surface area, making it difficult to form a thin layer. On the other hand, in the case where the content of the carbon particles 305 is lower than 0.01 vol %, the insulation distance between the aggregates 302 of the carbon particles 305 becomes larger, making it difficult to form a conductive path due to static electricity and to suppress charging”. Having “the carbon particles in an amount of higher than 0.01 vol %” is beyond the scope described in the detailed description of the invention. Therefore, the range of the upper limit of the carbon particles should be specified.
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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites “the insulating layer contains the carbon particles in an amount of higher than 0.01 vol %” is indefinite and unclear regarding the upper limit of the range. The originally filed specification in Paragraph [0063] states “[i]n the case where the content of the carbon particles 305 is 1 vol % or higher, a chain-like structure in which the aggregates 302 are further loosely connected to each other is formed, as a result of which a long-distance conductive path (percolation path) is formed. In this case, the resistance of the insulating layer 13 decreases drastically, and eddy current loss and circuit loss due to a parallel conductive path between electrodes may occur. Moreover, in the case where the content of the carbon particles 305 is 1 vol % or higher, the coating solution becomes highly viscous due to the carbon particles 305 having a high specific surface area, making it difficult to form a thin layer. On the other hand, in the case where the content of the carbon particles 305 is lower than 0.01 vol %, the insulation distance between the aggregates 302 of the carbon particles 305 becomes larger, making it difficult to form a conductive path due to static electricity and to suppress charging”. Having “the carbon particles in an amount of higher than 0.01 vol %” is beyond the scope described in the detailed description of the invention and is definite and unclear. Therefore, the range of the upper limit of the carbon particles should be specified.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0260535].
Regarding Claim 1, Kubota et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a base body (10) having a magnetic body portion containing a metal magnetic material (Paragraph [0052]);
a conductor (30) provided inside the base body (see Figs. 1-3);
an insulating layer (9, Paragraph [0068]) that is provided on a surface (top surface or bottom surface) of the magnetic body portion in the base body (10, see Figs. 1-3) and that is a resin containing carbon particles (Paragraphs [0068], [0108]); and
an external electrode (20 or 25) that extends along the surface of the base body and that is connected to the conductor (see Figs. 1-3, element 20 or 25 extends along top surface or bottom surface of element 10 and connected to element 30, Paragraphs [0023], [0045]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kubota et al. shows the insulating layer (9) contains an insulating inorganic filler (15, Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kubota et al. shows the insulating layer contains, as the inorganic filler, a second inorganic filler (15) having a spherical shape (Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kubota et al. shows wherein the base body (10) has a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface) opposite to the first surface (see Figs. 1-3),
the insulating layer (9) is provided on the first surface (see Fig. 3, element 9 is provided on the top surface), and
the external electrode (20 or 25) is provided on the second surface (see Fig. 3, element 20 or 25 is provided on the bottom surface through element 9).
Regarding Claim 8, Kubota et al. shows the insulating layer (9) covers the entire first surface (see Fig. 3, element 9 covers the entire top surface, Paragraph [0023]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Okamoto et al. [EP 1530223].
Regarding Claim 2, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly disclose the insulating layer contains the carbon particles in an amount of higher than 0.01 vol %.
Okamoto et al. an insulating member teaching and suggesting the insulating layer contains the carbon particles in an amount of higher than 0.01 vol % (Paragraphs [0051], [0058], Table 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the insulating layer contains the carbon particles in an amount of higher than 0.01 vol % as taught by Okamoto et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to achieve desirable high heat conductivity (Paragraph [0053]).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the insulating layer contains the carbon particles in an amount of higher than 0.01 vol %, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve desirable high heat conductivity. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Honkura et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0234346].
Regarding Claim 2, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly disclose the insulating layer contains the carbon particles in an amount of higher than 0.01 vol %.
Honkura et al. a coating film teaching and suggesting the insulating layer contains the carbon particles in an amount of higher than 0.01 vol % (carbon in a main component therefore should be higher than 0.01 vol %, Paragraph [0057]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the insulating layer contains the carbon particles in an amount of higher than 0.01 vol % as taught by Honkura et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to suppress cracking or being peeled off with excellent corrosion resistance, chemical resistance, and oxygen barrier properties (Paragraphs [0004], [0055]).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the insulating layer contains the carbon particles in an amount of higher than 0.01 vol %, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to suppress cracking or being peeled off with excellent corrosion resistance, chemical resistance, and oxygen barrier properties. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Lee et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0170123].
Regarding Claim 4, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the insulating layer contains, as the inorganic filler, a first inorganic filler having a major axis and a minor axis.
Lee et al. shows the insulating layer (310) contains, as the inorganic filler, a first inorganic filler (320 or 320b) having a major axis and a minor axis (see Fig. 4 or Fig. 5, Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the insulating layer contains an insulating inorganic filler as taught by Lee et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to achieve desirable high thermal conductivity (Paragraphs [0054], [0056]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Lee et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0028430] (hereinafter as “Lee ‘430”).
Regarding Claim 4, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the insulating layer contains, as the inorganic filler, a first inorganic filler having a major axis and a minor axis.
Lee ‘430 shows the insulating layer (150) contains, as the inorganic filler, a first inorganic filler (151) having a major axis and a minor axis (see Fig. 2, Paragraphs [0016], element 151 will have a major axis and a minor axis based on flake shape and aspect ratio of 20 to 200).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the insulating layer contains an insulating inorganic filler as taught by Lee ‘430 for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to achieve strong directivity where effect of suppressing shrinkage and expansion in a flow direction is excellent (Paragraph [0047]) and reduce thermal deformation and enhancing strength (Paragraph [0042]).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Lee et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0170123].
Regarding Claim 3, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Lee et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 3-5) teaching and suggesting the insulating layer (310) contains an insulating inorganic filler (320, Paragraphs [0056]-[0057]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the insulating layer contains an insulating inorganic filler as taught by Lee et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to achieve desirable high thermal conductivity (Paragraphs [0054], [0056]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee et al. shows the insulating layer (310) contains, as the inorganic filler, a first inorganic filler (320) having a major axis and a minor axis (see Fig. 4, Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee et al. shows the insulating layer (310) contains, as the inorganic filler, a second inorganic filler (320) having a spherical shape (see Fig. 3, Paragraph [0058]).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Lee et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0028430] (hereinafter as “Lee ‘430”).
Regarding Claim 3, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Lee ‘430 shows a coil component (Fig. 2) teaching and suggesting the insulating layer (150) contains an insulating inorganic filler (151, Paragraph [0018]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the insulating layer contains an insulating inorganic filler as taught by Lee ‘430 for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to reduce thermal deformation and enhancing strength (Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee ‘430 shows the insulating layer (150) contains, as the inorganic filler, a first inorganic filler (151) having a major axis and a minor axis (see Fig. 2, Paragraphs [0016], element 151 will have a major axis and a minor axis based on flake shape and aspect ratio of 20 to 200).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee ‘430 shows the insulating layer (150) contains, as the inorganic filler, a second inorganic filler (151) having a spherical shape (Paragraph [0019]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Okitsu et al. [JP 2020-170172].
Regarding Claim 6, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the resin has a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C.
However, Kubota et al. teaches a resin material (Paragraph [0039]) so therefore can obtain a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C (as of limitation "a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C", it is seen that the Kubota et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C).
Furthermore, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. resin, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In addition, Okitsu et al. shows a resin composition (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting the resin has a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C (see English translation, glass transition temperature or Tg is 150° C or higher or 160° C or higher).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the resin has a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C as taught by Okitsu et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to achieve having excellent distinctiveness and handleability in visual inspection (see English translation).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Zhai [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0172310].
Regarding Claim 6, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the resin has a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C.
However, Kubota et al. teaches a resin material (Paragraph [0039]) so therefore can obtain a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C (as of limitation "a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C", it is seen that the Kubota et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C).
Furthermore, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. resin, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In addition, Zhai shows a resin composition (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting the resin has a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C (Paragraph [0069]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the resin has a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C as taught by Zhai for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to achieve a high dielectric capability to support electrical isolation, high thermal properties to minimize z-axis expansion, and high potential to prevent barrel cracking (Paragraph [0069]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Ohmi et al. [U.S Pub. No. 2008/0049407].
Regarding Claim 6, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the resin has a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C.
However, Kubota et al. teaches a resin material (Paragraph [0039]) so therefore can obtain a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C (as of limitation "a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C", it is seen that the Kubota et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C).
Furthermore, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. resin, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In addition, Ohmi et al. shows a resin composition (Fig. 2) teaching and suggesting the resin has a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C (Paragraph [0046]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the resin has a glass transition temperature of higher than 150° C as taught by Ohmi et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to reduce parasitic capacitance component and exhibits characteristics of no degradation; and no degradation in heat resistance (Paragraph [0047]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Jeon et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0143976].
Regarding Claim 8, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Jeon et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-5) teaching and suggesting the insulating layer (400) covers the entire first surface (105, see Figs. 1-5, element 400 covers the entire element 105, Paragraph [0072]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the insulating layer covers the entire first surface as taught by Jeon et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted contacts; and increase breakdown voltage while overall thickness is reduced; and effective volume of the magnetic body is increased in the entire volume of the coil component, so deterioration of the characteristics is prevented (Paragraphs [0098]-[0099]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Choi [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0268038].
Regarding Claim 8, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Choi shows a coil component (Figs. 1-7C) teaching and suggesting the insulating layer (60) covers the entire first surface (see Figs. 1-7C, element 60 covers the entire top surface, Paragraphs [0077], [0115]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the insulating layer covers the entire first surface as taught by Choi for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted contacts and connection; and to prevent contact defects between a coil and external electrodes and improving inductance by increasing a volume of a body, and a method capable of economically and efficiently manufacturing the coil electronic component (Paragraph [0006]).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Choi [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0268038].
Regarding Claim 7, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Choi shows a coil component (Figs. 1-7C) teaching and suggesting the base body (50) has a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface) opposite to the first surface (see Figs. 1-7C),
the insulating layer (60) is provided on the first surface (see Figs. 1-7C, element 60 is provided on the top surface), and
the external electrode (84 or 85) is provided on the second surface (see Figs. 1-7C, element 84 or 85 is provided on the bottom surface).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the base body has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the insulating layer is provided on the first surface, and the external electrode is provided on the second surface as taught by Choi for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to have a compact design to reduce thickness of the coil component to secure high performance and reliability (Paragraph [0005]); and preventing contact defects between a coil and external electrodes and improving inductance by increasing a volume of a body, and a method capable of economically and efficiently manufacturing the coil electronic component (Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 8, Choi shows the insulating layer (60) covers the entire first surface (see Figs. 1-7C, element 60 covers the entire top surface, Paragraphs [0077], [0115]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Jun [U.S Pub. No. 2023/0197332].
Regarding Claim 11, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the insulating layer has a thickness of less than 10 µm.
Jun shows a coil component (Figs. 1-3) teaching and suggesting the insulating layer (410) has a thickness (T1) of less than 10 µm (Paragraph [0074]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the insulating layer has a thickness of less than 10 µm as taught by Jun for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to achieve desirable moisture resistance and inductance characteristics (Paragraphs [0075]-[0076]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the insulating layer has a thickness of less than 10 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve desirable moisture resistance and inductance characteristics. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. in view of Choi et al. [KR 10-1592351].
Regarding Claim 11, Kubota et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the insulating layer has a thickness of less than 10 µm.
Choi et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting the insulating layer (52) has a thickness of less than 10 µm (Paragraph [0076]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the insulating layer has a thickness of less than 10 µm as taught by Choi et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Kubota et al. to have a compact design to facilitate insulation.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the insulating layer has a thickness of less than 10 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to have a compact design to facilitate insulation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at (571)272-3985. 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.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
