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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 20th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed July 20th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-8 are currently examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 § U.S.C 112(a) are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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 1 has been amended to recite “an electrode presence region in which the extracavity electrode exists that comprises from about 1/3 to about 2/5 of the predetermined length of the inner layer from the front end of the element body, and a posterior region that comprises from about 2/3 to about 4/5 of the predetermined length of the inner layer from the front end of the element body”. This limitation is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. The filed specification does not disclose “an electrode presence region in which the extracavity electrode exists that comprises from about 1/3 to about 2/5 of the predetermined length of the inner layer from the front end of the element body, and a posterior region that comprises from about 2/3 to about 4/5 of the predetermined length of the inner layer from the front end of the element body”. Para. 0121 of the instant specification teaches the porosity in the posterior region 91c, based on the length LA in the longitudinal direction of the inner layer 91, may have a porosity at about 2/3, about 3/4, or about 4/5 of the length LA from the front end of the element body 102. However, this is different from “a posterior region that comprises from about 2/3 to about 4/5 of the predetermined length of the inner layer from the front end of the element body” recited in the newly amended claim 1. In addition, para. 0122 of the instant specification teaches the porosity in the electrode presence region 91b of the inner layer 91, based on the length LA in the longitudinal direction of the inner layer 91, may have a porosity at about 1/3, about 1/4, or about 2/5 of the length LA from the front end of the element body 102. However, this is different from “an electrode presence region in which the extracavity electrode exists that comprises from about 1/3 to about 2/5 of the predetermined length of the inner layer from the front end of the element body Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pgs. 6-13, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections and amended claims have been fully considered.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C 103 prior art rejections for Claims 1-8 on pages 6-13, by amending Claim 1 to include “the extracavity electrode exists that comprises from about 1/3 to about 2/5 of the predetermined length of the inner layer from the front end of the element body, and a posterior region that comprises from about 2/3 to about 4/5 of the predetermined length of the inner layer from the front end of the element body following to the electrode presence region in the longitudinal direction of the base part. As Ogiso does not disclose or suggest that the inner leading-end protective layer 21 has different porosities at different positions, and Hino merely states that the outer protective layer can have different thicknesses and different porosities, claim 1 is allowable. Applicant further argues that although Hino is used to teach varying the porosity at different positions via results-effective variable the porosity affects water-induced cracking, the instant application instead varies the porosity to affect adhesion strength. As such, the porosity should not be recognized as a results-effective variable.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDALL LEE GAMBLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5492. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/R.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/SHIZHI QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights