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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 06/12/2026 to the non-final Office action of 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. The Office action on the currently pending claims 1, 3-8, and 11-22 follows.
Claim Objections
The below claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3, 11-12, and 18-19: every instance of “the short direction” should be amended to recite “the short direction (D1)” for consistency purposes. As currently presented, there are some instances in which “(D1)” is included and there are other instances in which “(D1)” is not included, and thus providing inconsistent claim nomenclature.
Claims 1, 3, 11-12, and 17-19: every instance of “the longer direction” should be amended to recite “the longer direction (D2)” for similar reasons as outlined above. As currently presented, there is no consistency as to when “(D2)” is included or not included.
Claim 7 Ln.3: the clause “on the opposite side” should be amended to recite “on an opposite side” for antecedent reasons.
The Office requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting ALL remaining informalities present in the claims, including those not outlined above. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namikawa (US 20140334055) in view of Namikawa (WO 2020027052) (referred to as Namikawa'052) (refer to US 20210375568 for translation) and in further view of Namikawa (JP 2017208358) (referred to as Namikawa'358).
Regarding claim 1, Namikawa discloses (Figs.1-3 and 6):
See next page→
A breaker comprising: a fixed contact (21); a movable piece (4), which has a short direction (D1) (See Figures Below) and a longer direction (D2) (See Figures Below) orthogonal thereto, and which comprises an elastic portion (43) being elastically deformable (See Abstract and [0024]) and a movable contact (3) in one end portion (Fig.1: 3 is provided at an end portion of 43) of the elastic portion (43) in the longer direction (See Figures Below: 3 is provided at an end portion of 43 in the longer direction), and which is for pressing the movable contact (3) against the fixed contact (21) to contact therewith (See Fig.2); a thermally-actuated element (5) which is deformed in response to temperature changes ([0021]) so as to shift the movable piece (4) from a conductive state (See Fig.2) in which the movable contact (3) contacts with the fixed contact (21) to a cut-off state (See Fig.3) in which the movable contact (3) is separated from the fixed contact (21); a first resin case (71) which has an accommodation recess (73) for accommodating the fixed contact (21), the movable piece (4) and the thermally-actuated element (5) (Accommodation Recess accommodating Fixed Contact, Movable Piece, and Thermally-Actuated Element: [0029]- since 21 is a part of 2, 73 will accommodate 21); and a second resin case (72) which is fixed to the first resin case (71) and covers the accommodation recess (73) (Figs.1-3: in the assembled state, 72 is fixed to 71 and covers 73), wherein the second resin case (72) has a first recess (See Figures Below) which is recessed in a thickness direction (See Figures Below) of the second resin case (72), wherein the second resin case (72) has a second accommodation recess (See Figures Below) for accommodating the elastic portion (43) and the movable contact (3) of the movable piece (4), and the first recess of the second resin case (72) constitutes a part of the second accommodation recess (See Figures Below and See Figs.1-3 and 6: the first recess of 72 is a part of the second accommodation recess in order to define 76).
See next page→
PNG
media_image1.png
838
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See next page→
PNG
media_image2.png
920
886
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Namikawa does not disclose:
Wherein the second resin case has an embedding portion in which a part of the movable piece is embedded, and the first resin case has a first protruding portion which is fitted into the first recess of the second resin case, wherein the first protruding portion comprises a first outer side surface perpendicular to the short direction of the movable piece, and a second side surface perpendicular to the longer direction of the movable piece.
Namikawa'052 however teaches (Figs.1-2):
Wherein the second resin case (7) has an embedding portion (Fig.1: portion of 7 where 43 is located) in which a part (43) of the movable piece (4) is embedded ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Namikawa'052 to modify the device of Namikawa such that the second resin case has an embedding portion that embeds a part of the movable piece, as claimed, in order to provide a simpler and more efficient means of assembling the device (i.e., a separate bonding means for attaching the movable piece is no longer required since the movable piece can be molded into the case, and thus the second resin case can be bonded to the first resin case in fewer steps).
However, the above combination would still fail to teach:
The first resin case has a first protruding portion which is fitted into the first recess of the second resin case, wherein the first protruding portion comprises a first outer side surface perpendicular to the short direction of the movable piece, and a second side surface perpendicular to the longer direction of the movable piece.
Namikawa'358 however teaches (Fig.1):
The first resin case (81) has a first protruding portion (84) which is fitted into the first recess (76) of the second resin case (71), wherein the first protruding portion (84) comprises a first outer side surface (See Figure Below: indicated as “First Side Surface”) perpendicular to the short direction (See Figure Below) of the movable piece (4), and a second side surface (See Figure Below) perpendicular to the longer direction (See Figure Below) of the movable piece (4).
PNG
media_image3.png
775
923
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Namikawa'358 to further modify the device of modified Namikawa such that the first resin case has a first protruding portion that is fitted into the first recess of the second resin case (i.e., in addition to 76 of Namikawa, provide the opening 76 taught by Namikawa'358 in 72 of Namikawa so that the combination of openings define the "first recess", and then provide 84 of Namikawa'358 to 71 of Namikawa as taught by [0086] of Namikawa'358, which teaches that the locations of 84 and 76 can be reversed), and such that the first protruding portions comprises a first outer side surface perpendicular to the short direction of the movable piece, and a second side surface perpendicular to the longer direction of the movable piece, as claimed, in order to provide a more stable connection for the movable piece as taught by Namikawa'358 ([0076]).
Furthermore, the above modification would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to achieve the improved connection, as explained above, since it would only involve a reversal or rearrangement of parts, which has been held to involve only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) and In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Namikawa further discloses:
Wherein the first resin case (71) has a second recess (See Figure Below) on a fixed contact side (See Figure Below) in the longer direction (D2) (See Figures of Claim 1 and See Figure Below: the second recess is on the fixed contact side, which is on the longer direction of 4), and the second resin case (72) has a second protruding portion (Fig.6: the protrusions on 72) which is fitted into the second recess (Figs.1 and 6: as shown, the protrusions on 72 fits into the second recess of 71).
See next page→
PNG
media_image4.png
948
901
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Namikawa’358 further teaches:
Wherein the first protruding portion (84) is disposed outside the accommodation recess (73) (Fig.1: in the assembled state, 84 is outside of 73) in the longer direction (D2) (See Figures of Claim 1: 84 is outside of 73 in the longer direction).
See next page→
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Namikawa’358 to further modify the device of Namikawa such that the first protruding portion is disposed outside the accommodation recess, as claimed, in order to achieve the stable connection as outlined in claim 1 above.
However, the above combination would still fail to teach:
Wherein the first protruding portion is disposed on the opposite side to the fixed contact in the longer direction (D2).
However, modifying the location of the first protruding portion such that it is in a desired area, including as claimed (i.e., on an opposite side to the fixed contact in the longer direction), as suggested by Namikawa’358 ([0043]-[0044]: explicitly teaches that 76 and 84 can be provided in a plurality of places, and thus also suggesting that the locations of 76 and 84 can be altered), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to achieve the stable connection as outlined in claim 1 above, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
See next page→
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namikawa (US 20140334055), Namikawa (WO 2020027052) (referred to as Namikawa'052) (refer to US 20210375568 for translation), and Namikawa (JP 2017208358) (referred to as Namikawa'358) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Namikawa (JP 2015141880) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document) (referred to as Namikawa'880).
Regarding claim 8, modified Namikawa does not teach:
Wherein the second resin case comprises a projecting portion projecting toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and the first recess is formed on each side of the projecting portion in the short direction (D1).
Namikawa’880 however teaches (Figs.1-4):
Wherein the second resin case (81) comprises a projecting portion (86) projecting toward the movable contact (3) from the embedding portion (Fig.2: portion of 9 embedded in 81) (Figs.1-2 and 4: 86 protrudes towards 3 from the embedded portion of 81), and the first recess (See Figure Below) is formed on each side (See Fig.4) of the projecting portion (86) in the short direction (D1).
PNG
media_image5.png
542
931
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Namikawa'880 to further modify the device of modified Namikawa such that the second resin case has a projecting portion that projects toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and such that the first recess is formed on each side in the short direction of the movable piece, of the projecting portion, as claimed, in order to provide an improved means of regulating the shape of the thermally-actuated element when the thermally-actuated element is thermally deformed as taught by Namikawa'880 ([0034]).
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namikawa (US 20140334055) in view of Namikawa (WO 2020027052) (referred to as Namikawa'052) (refer to US 20210375568 for translation) in further view of Masuda (JP 2005108585) and in further view of Namikawa (JP 2015141880) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document) (referred to as Namikawa'880).
Regarding claim 17, Namikawa discloses (Figs.1-3 and 6):
A breaker comprising: a fixed contact (21); a movable piece (4), which has a short direction (D1) (See Figures of Claim 1) and a longer direction (D2) (See Figures of Claim 1) orthogonal thereto, and which comprises an elastic portion (43) being elastically deformable (See Abstract and [0024]) and a movable contact (3) in one end portion (Fig.1: 3 is provided at an end portion of 43) of the elastic portion (43) in the longer direction (See Figures of Claim 1: 3 is provided at an end portion of 43 in the longer direction), and which is for pressing the movable contact (3) against the fixed contact (21) to contact therewith (See Fig.2); a thermally-actuated element (5) which is deformed in response to temperature changes ([0021]) so as to shift the movable piece (4) from a conductive state (See Fig.2) in which the movable contact (3) contacts with the fixed contact (21) to a cut-off state (See Fig.3) in which the movable contact (21) is separated from the fixed contact (21); a first resin case (71) which has an accommodation recess (73) for accommodating the fixed contact (21), the movable piece (4) and the thermally-actuated element (5); and a second resin case (72) which is fixed to the first resin case (71) and covers the accommodation recess (73) (Figs.1-3: in the assembled state, 72 is fixed to 71 and covers 73), wherein the second resin case (72) has a first recess (See Figures of Claim 1) which is recessed in a thickness direction of the second resin case (72) (See Figures of Claim 1: the first recess is recessed in a thickness direction of 72), wherein the first resin case (71) has a first top surface (See Figure Below) and a second top surface (See Figure Below), and which have different heights from a bottom surface of the first resin case (71) measured in a thickness direction of the first resin case (71) (First Top Surface and Second Top Surface having different heights from Bottom of the First Resin Case in a Thickness Direction: See Figure Below).
See next page→
PNG
media_image6.png
982
854
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Namikawa does not disclose:
Wherein the second resin case has an embedding portion in which a part of the movable piece is embedded, and the first resin case has a first protruding portion which is fitted into the first recess of the second resin case, wherein the second resin case comprises a projecting portion projecting toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and the first recess is formed on each side of the projecting portion in the short direction, wherein the first resin case has a first top surface and a second top surface which are adjacent to the first protruding portion.
Namikawa'052 however teaches (Figs.1-2):
Wherein the second resin case (7) has an embedding portion (Fig.1: portion of 7 where 43 is located) in which a part (43) of the movable piece (4) is embedded ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Namikawa'052 to modify the device of Namikawa such that the second resin case has an embedding portion that embeds a part of the movable piece, as claimed, in order to provide a simpler and more efficient means of assembling the device (i.e., a separate bonding means for attaching the movable piece is no longer required since the movable piece can be molded into the case, and thus the second resin case can be bonded to the first resin case in fewer steps).
However, the above combination fails to teach:
The first resin case has a first protruding portion which is fitted into the first recess of the second resin case, wherein the second resin case comprises a projecting portion projecting toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and the first recess is formed on each side of the projecting portion in the short direction, wherein the first resin case has a first top surface and a second top surface which are adjacent to the first protruding portion.
Masuda however teaches (Figs.1 and 4):
The first resin case (1) has a first protruding portion (1b) which is fitted into the first recess (Fig.4: the interior space of 6 that has both 6a and 6b) of the second resin case (6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Masuda to further modify the device of modified Namikawa such that the first resin case has a first protruding portion that is fitted into the first recess of the second resin case so that the first top surface and the second top surface of the first resin case are adjacent to the first protruding portion, as claimed, in order to further improve the overall connection between the first resin case and the second resin case due to the increased number of joints being used to connect the first resin case to the second resin case (i.e., now both the first resin case and second resin case have a protruding portion that are utilized to couple the resin cases together, and thus increasing the total number of joints being utilized to hold the case together).
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
Wherein the second resin case comprises a projecting portion projecting toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and the first recess is formed on each side of the projecting portion in the short direction.
Namikawa’880 however teaches (Figs.1-4):
Wherein the second resin case (81) comprises a projecting portion (86) projecting toward the movable contact (3) from the embedding portion (Fig.2: portion of 9 embedded in 81) (Figs.1-2 and 4: 86 protrudes towards 3 from the embedded portion of 81), and the first recess (See Figure of Claim 8) is formed on each side (See Figure of Claim 8) of the projecting portion (86) in the short direction (D1) (See Figure of Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Namikawa'880 to further modify the device of modified Namikawa such that the second resin case has a projecting portion that projects toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and such that the first recess is formed on each side of the projecting portion in the short direction, as claimed, in order to provide an improved means of regulating the shape of the thermally-actuated element when the thermally-actuated element is thermally deformed as taught by Namikawa'880 ([0034]).
Regarding claim 22, Namikawa further discloses:
Wherein the first resin case (71) has a second recess (See Figure of Claim 6) on a fixed contact side (See Figure of Claim 6) in the longer direction (D2) (See Figures of Claims 1 and 6: each second recess is provided in the longer direction of 4), and the second resin case (72) has a second protruding portion (Fig.6: the protrusions on 72) which is fitted into the second recess (Figs.1 and 6: as shown, the protrusions on 72 fits into the second recess of 71).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namikawa (US 20140334055) in view of Namikawa (WO 2020027052) (referred to as Namikawa'052) (refer to US 20210375568 for translation) in further view of Masuda (JP 2005108585) and in further view of Namikawa (JP 2015141880) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document) (referred to as Namikawa'880), or alternatively over Namikawa in view of Namikawa’052, in further view of Masuda, in further view of Namikawa’880, and in further view of Oh (US 6046665).
Regarding claim 18, Masuda further teaches:
Wherein the first protruding portion (1b) comprises a first outer side surface (outer side surface of 1b) perpendicular to the short direction (See Figure Below) of the movable piece (4) (Fig.1: when looking at the cross-sectional view of 1b, the first side surface of 1b will be perpendicular to the short direction of 4).
PNG
media_image7.png
772
709
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Masuda to further modify the device of Namikawa such that the first protruding portion comprises a first outer side surface that is perpendicular to the short direction of the movable piece, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved connection as outlined in claim 17 above.
However, the above combination would still fail to teach:
A second side surface perpendicular to a longer direction of the movable piece.
However, modifying the shape of the first protruding portion such that it has a desired shape (e.g., a rectangular/box-like shape) so that the first protruding portion has a first outer side surface that is perpendicular to the short direction of the movable piece, and a second side surface that is perpendicular to the longer direction of the movable piece, as claimed, would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date would do in order to provide an improved means of making the first protruding portion (i.e., it is known in the art that it is generally simpler to make rectangles/box-like structures in comparison to a cylindrical structure), since a change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Alternatively, Oh teaches (Fig.10):
The first protruding portion (168) comprising a box-like structure (See Fig.10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Oh to further modify the device of modified Namikawa such that the first protruding portion has a box-like structure so that the first protruding portion comprises a first outer side surface that is perpendicular to the short direction of the movable piece, and a second side surface that is perpendicular to the longer direction of the movable piece, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved manufacturing means as outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 11-16, and 19-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as respectively recited in independent claims 3, 11, and 19, and at least in part, for the reasons outlined in the non-final Office action of 03/12/2026.
In the amendments of 06/12/2026, Applicant amended claims 3 and 19 such that they are each written in independent form that include the limitations of their respective base claim (i.e., claim 3 was amended to be in independent form that includes all of the limitations of independent claim 1, and claim 19 was amended to be in independent form that includes all of the limitations of independent claim 17) in order to put the claims in condition for allowance, as outlined in the previous Office action. Therefore independent claims 3 and 19 are now believed to be in condition for the same reasons as those outlined in the non-final Office action of 03/12/2026.
See next page→
Applicant further amended the claims in order to address the claim objections made in the previous Office action. The amendments have been fully considered and accepted. The claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Namikawa (US 20140334055) is still believed to be the closest prior art reference for independent claims 3, 11, and 19. As outlined in the previous Office action and as outlined above, Namikawa teaches a breaker that is very similar to that of the instant application. However, Namikawa fails to disclose, at least, the allowable limitations as respectively recited in independent claims 3, 11, and 19. Furthermore, none of the remaining prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned allowable limitations as respectively recited in claims 3, 11, and 19. Therefore, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the claimed invention unpatentable as respectively claimed in independent claims 3, 11, and 19.
Furthermore, none of the Office actions provided in the Global Dossier are believed to provide a prior art reference or combination of prior art references that teach and/or suggest the allowable limitations as respectively recited in independent claims 3, 11, and 19. Therefore, claims 3, 11, and 19 are still believed to be allowable over the Office actions provided in the Global Dossier for the same exact reasons as those outlined in the non-final Office action of 03/12/2026.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, independent claims 3, 11, and 19, and all claims depending therefrom, are believed to be in condition for allowance.
See next page→
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 06/12/2026 have been fully considered, but regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to claims 1 and 17, Applicant’s arguments have been found unpersuasive. Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant contests that the claim is now in condition for allowance since none of the prior art references “discloses or suggests the second accommodation recess newly added to Claim 1 by the present amendment”.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to Applicant’s disclosure, specifically figure 4 of Applicant’s figures and paragraph [0134] of Applicant’s specification (see US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification). The “first recess” (82) is merely a portion of the “second accommodation recess” (83) and is not a separate/distinct recess from the “second accommodation recess” (83). Furthermore, the amended limitations of independent claim 1 also claims that the “first recess” is simply a portion of the “second accommodation recess”. Referring now to the annotated figures of Namikawa provided for the rejection made to claim 1 above, the annotated figures were made to look similar to figure 4 of Applicant’s figures. As annotated, the “first recess” is a portion of the “second accommodation recess”, which is also formed on the second resin case, and thus satisfying each and every single limitation of the amended limitations made to independent claim 1. In other words, utilizing the annotated figures of Namikawa, Namikawa discloses the same “first recess” and “second accommodation recess” as described in Applicant’s invention. For all of the reasons provided above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be in error, and the previous references utilized to reject claim 1 are still maintained.
Regarding independent claim 17, Applicant contests that the claim is now in condition for allowance because none of the references utilized to reject independent claim 17 in the non-final Office action of 03/12/2026 “discloses or suggests the first and second top surfaces having different heights newly added to Claim 17 by the present amendment”.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to the rejection made to claim 17 above. As provided in the annotated figure, Namikawa shows a first resin casing (71) that has a more elevated top surface and a more recessed top surface that extends from the elevated top surface. Furthermore, as explained in the annotated figure above, when measuring the height of the more elevated top surface and the height of the more recessed top surface from the bottom surface of the first resin casing, the more elevated top surface and the more recessed top surface will have different heights, and thus satisfying the amended limitations. Referring now to the amended limitation, there does not appear to be anything in the claim that would render the above interpretation improper, especially after modifying Namikawa as modified in claim 17 above. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be improper, and all of the references utilized to reject independent claim 17 are maintained.
See next page→
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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.
See next page→
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571)272-3740. 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights