DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate with applicant via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502.03, 502.05.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9, 11, & 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa et al. (US 2023/0335340) in view of JP2016072279A hereafter referred to as Sugita.
In regards to claim 1,
Tomizawa ‘340 discloses a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising:
a ceramic element body (11 – fig. 19; [0058]) including ceramic layers ([0064]), first internal electrodes (12 – fig. 19; [0064]), and second internal electrodes (13 – fig. 19; [0064]) that are laminated in a height direction, a first main surface and a second main surface (11e & 11f – fig. 19; [0061]) opposed to each other in the height direction, a first end surface and a second end surface (11a & 11b – fig. 19; [0061]) opposed to each other in a length direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the height direction, and a first lateral surface and a second lateral surface (11c & 11d – fig. 1; [0061]) opposed to each other in a width direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the height direction and the length direction; and
a first external electrode (14a – fig. 19; [0058]) and a second external electrode (14b – fig. 19; [0058]) on an outer surface of the ceramic element body; wherein
each of the first internal electrodes extends toward, is exposed at the first end surface, and is electrically connected with the first external electrode (fig. 19);
each of the second internal electrodes extends toward, is exposed at the second end surface, and is electrically connected with the second external electrode (fig. 19);
when a cross section parallel or substantially parallel to the first lateral surface and the second lateral surface is viewed, the first external electrode has an L-shape on the first end surface and the first main surface, and the second external electrode has an L-shape on the second end surface and the first main surface (fig. 19). Tomizawa ‘340 fails to disclose wherein R dimensions of a ridge line where the first main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the first main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the first main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, and a ridge line where the first main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other are respectively larger than R dimensions of a ridge line where the second main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the second main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the second main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, and a ridge line where the second main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other.
Sugita discloses wherein R dimensions of a ridge line where the first main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the first main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the first main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, and a ridge line where the first main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other are respectively larger than R dimensions of a ridge line where the second main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the second main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the second main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, and a ridge line where the second main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other (fig. 2-3; [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rounded the ridges of Tomizawa ‘340 such that the radius of the ridges and corners of the first main surface are larger than those of the second main surface as taught by Sugita to allow for the height of the solder fillet during mounting to be reduced.
In regards to claim 3,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita further discloses wherein R dimensions of a corner where the first main surface, the first end surface, and the first lateral surface are in contact with one another, a corner where the first main surface, the first lateral surface, and the second end surface are in contact with one another, a corner where the first main surface, the second end surface, and the second lateral surface are in contact with one another, and a corner where the first main surface, the second lateral surface, and the first end surface are in contact with one another are respectively larger than R dimensions of a corner where the second main surface, the first end surface, and the first lateral surface are in contact with one another, a corner where the second main surface, the first lateral surface, and the second end surface are in contact with one another, a corner where the second main surface, the second end surface, and the second lateral surface are in contact with one another, and a corner where the second main surface, the second lateral surface, and the first end surface are in contact with one another (fig. 2-3; [0030] of Sugita).
In regards to claim 4,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita further discloses wherein the second main surface includes a plurality of embossed holes (P1 – fig. 19; [0044] of Tomizawa ‘340).
In regards to claim 5,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita further discloses wherein the first external electrode and the second external electrode each include:
a base external electrode (141 – fig. 19; [0074] of Tomizawa ‘340); and
at least one plated external electrode layer (142 – fig. 19; [0074] of Tomizawa ‘340) provided outside the base external electrode.
In regards to claim 9,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita further discloses wherein the base external electrode is a thin film ([0074] of Tomizawa ‘340).
In regards to claim 11,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita further discloses wherein the plated external electrode layer includes at least one of a Cu-plated external electrode layer, a Ni-plated external electrode layer, and an Au-plated external electrode layer ([0077] of Tomizawa ‘340).
In regards to claim 16,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita further discloses wherein one of a dimension in the length direction or a dimension in the width direction is about 1.0 mm or less and the other is about 0.5 mm or less ([0062] & [0165] of Tomizawa ‘340).
In regards to claim 17,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita further discloses wherein a dimension in the height direction is about 0.1 mm or less ([0062] of Tomizawa ‘340).
In regards to claim 18,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita further discloses wherein a thickness of each of the ceramic layers is about 0.3 μm to about 2.0 μm ([0071] of Tomizawa ‘340).
In regards to claim 19,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita further discloses wherein the embossed holes are recessed holes each including a bottom (P10 – fig. 5 & 19; [0085] of Tomizawa ‘340).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (US 2012/0194031).
In regards to claim 2,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita fails to disclose wherein the R dimension of each of the ridge line where the first main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, the ridge line where the first main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, the ridge line where the first main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, and the ridge line where the first main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other is about 1 μm or more and about 10 μm or less.
Ogawa ‘031 discloses wherein the R dimension of each of the ridge line where the first main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, the ridge line where the first main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, the ridge line where the first main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, and the ridge line where the first main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other is about 1 μm or more and about 10 μm or less ([0013] & [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rounded the ridges along the first main surface (where the plating layer extends thereto) of Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita to have a radius as taught by Ogawa ‘031 to allow for good fixing strength of the plated layers ensuing good moisture resistance.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2017/0278631).
In regards to claim 6,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita fails to disclose wherein the base external electrode includes a dummy internal electrode that is shorter than the first internal electrodes and the second internal electrodes in the length direction and is exposed at the first main surface of the ceramic element body.
Choi ‘631 discloses wherein the base external electrode includes a dummy internal electrode (140 – fig. 3C; [0070]) that is shorter than the first internal electrodes and the second internal electrodes in the length direction and is exposed at the first main surface of the ceramic element body (fig. 2 & 3C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form dummy internal electrode as taught by Choi ‘631 on the first main surface of the ceramic body of Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita to improve the adhesion of the plating layer thereon.
In regards to claim 7,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita and Choi ‘631 further discloses wherein the dummy internal electrode is made of a same material as materials of the first internal electrodes and the second external electrode ([0059] of Choi ‘631).
In regards to claim 8,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita and Choi ‘631 further discloses wherein the dummy internal electrode includes Ni as a main component ([0065] of Tomizawa ‘340 and [0059] of Choi ‘631).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Nishimura (US 2021/0233713).
In regards to claim 10,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita fails to disclose wherein the thin film includes NiCr as a main component.
Nishimura ‘713 discloses wherein the thin film includes NiCr as a main component ([0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the thin film of Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita using NiCr as taught by Nishimura ‘713 as such a material is taught to be a known alternative to just Ni and is taught to be more preferable. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Motoki et al. (US 8,520,361).
In regards to claim 12,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita fails to disclose wherein the plated external electrode layer includes the Ni-plated external electrode layer provided outside the base external electrode and the Au-plated external electrode layer provided outside the Ni-plated external electrode layer.
Motoki ‘361 discloses wherein the plated external electrode layer includes the Ni-plated external electrode layer (11 – fig. 1; C5:L53-56) provided outside the base external electrode (13 – fig. 1; C4:L61-63) and the Au-plated (12 – fig. 1; C5:L57-61) external electrode layer provided outside the Ni-plated external electrode layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plated layer of Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita to have a structure as taught by Motoki ‘361 to obtain an electrode that is thin and has good solderability. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 13,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita fails to disclose wherein the plated external electrode layer includes the Cu-plated external electrode layer provided outside the base external electrode, the Ni-plated external electrode layer provided outside the Cu-plated external electrode layer, and the Au-plated external electrode layer provided outside the Ni-plated external electrode layer.
Motoki ‘361 discloses wherein the plated external electrode layer includes the Cu-plated external electrode layer (14 – fig. 1; C4:L23-25)provided outside the base external electrode (13 – fig. 1; C4:L61-63), the Ni-plated external electrode layer (11 – fig. 1; C5:L53-56) provided outside the Cu-plated external electrode layer, and the Au-plated external electrode layer (12 – fig. 1; C5:L57-61) provided outside the Ni-plated external electrode layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plated layer of Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita to have a structure as taught by Motoki ‘361 to obtain an electrode that is thin and has good solderability. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (US 2012/0039014).
In regards to claim 14,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita fails to disclose wherein the Ni-plated external electrode layer includes P.
Ogawa ‘014 discloses wherein the Ni-plated external electrode layer includes P ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the Ni plated layer of Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita to include P as taught by Ogawa ‘014 to obtain a Ni plating layer with improved fixing strength and improved corrosion resistance. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Uenishi et al. (US 2019/0096577).
In regards to claim 15,
Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita fails to disclose wherein the Cu-plated external electrode layer includes Ni.
Uenishi ‘577 discloses wherein the Cu-plated external electrode layer includes Ni (claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plated layer of Tomizawa ‘340 as modified by Sugita using a Cu-Ni alloy as taught by Uenishi ‘577 as such a material is taught to be a known alternative to just Cu or Ni. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim(s) 4 is/are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/800362 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 5-19 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/800362 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
In regards to claim 1, Application No. 18/800362 claims
A multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising:
a ceramic element body including ceramic layers, first internal electrodes and second internal electrodes laminated in a height direction, a first main surface and a second main surface opposed to each other in the height direction, a first end surface and a second end surface opposed to each other in a length direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the height direction, and a first lateral surface and a second lateral surface opposed to each other in a width direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the height direction and the length direction; and
a first external electrode and a second external electrode on an outer surface of the ceramic element body; wherein
each of the first internal electrodes extends toward and is exposed at the first end surface, and is electrically connected with the first external electrode;
each of the plurality of second internal electrodes extends toward and is exposed at the second end surface, and is electrically connected with the second external electrode;
when a cross section parallel or substantially parallel to the first lateral surface and the second lateral surface is viewed, the first external electrode has an L-shape on the first end surface and the first main surface, and the second external electrode has an L-shape on the second end surface and the first main surface (claim 1); and
R dimensions of a ridge line where the first main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the first main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the first main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, and a ridge line where the first main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other are respectively larger than R dimensions of a ridge line where the second main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the second main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the second main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, and a ridge line where the second main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other (claim 2).
In regards to claim 2, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 1, wherein the R dimension of each of the ridge line where the first main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, the ridge line where the first main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, the ridge line where the first main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, and the ridge line where the first main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other is about 1 μm or more and about 10 μm or less (claim 3).
In regards to claim 5, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 1, wherein the first external electrode and the second external electrode each include:
a base external electrode; and
at least one plated external electrode layer provided outside the base external electrode (claim 4).
In regards to claim 6, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 5, wherein the base external electrode includes a dummy internal electrode that is shorter than the first internal electrodes and the second internal electrodes in the length direction and is exposed at the first main surface of the ceramic element body (claim 5).
In regards to claim 7, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 6, wherein the dummy internal electrode is made of a same material as materials of the first internal electrodes and the second external electrode (claim 6).
In regards to claim 8, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 6, wherein the dummy internal electrode includes Ni as a main component (claim 7).
In regards to claim 9, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 5, wherein the base external electrode is a thin film (claim 8).
In regards to claim 10, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 9, wherein the thin film includes NiCr as a main component (claim 9).
In regards to claim 11, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 5, wherein the plated external electrode layer includes at least one selected from a Cu-plated external electrode layer, a Ni-plated external electrode layer, and an Au-plated external electrode layer (claim 10).
In regards to claim 12, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 11, wherein the plated external electrode layer includes the Ni-plated external electrode layer provided outside the base external electrode and the Au-plated external electrode layer provided outside the Ni-plated external electrode layer (claim 11).
In regards to claim 13, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 11, wherein the plated external electrode layer includes the Cu-plated external electrode layer provided outside the base external electrode, the Ni-plated external electrode layer provided outside the Cu-plated external electrode layer, and the Au-plated external electrode layer provided outside the Ni-plated external electrode layer (claim 12).
In regards to claim 14, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 11, wherein the Ni-plated external electrode layer includes P (claim 13).
In regards to claim 15, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 11, wherein the Cu-plated external electrode layer includes Ni (claim 14).
In regards to claim 16, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 1, wherein one of a dimension in the length direction or a dimension in the width direction W is about 1.0 mm or less and the other is about 0.5 mm or less (claim 15).
In regards to claim 17, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 1, wherein a dimension in the height direction is about 0.1 mm or less (claim 16).
In regards to claim 18, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of each of the ceramic layers is about 0.3 μm to about 2.0 μm (claim 17).
In regards to claim 19, Application No. 18/800362 claims
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 4, wherein the embossed holes are recessed holes including a bottom (claim 18).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0294010 – fig. 3 & 5 US 2019/0096583 – fig. 2; [0031]
US 2007/0014075 – fig. 8B US 2014/0151101 – fig. 2
US 2021/0193390 – [0029] US 5,251,094 – fig. 3-4
JP11040456A – fig. 16 JP64018722U – fig. 2
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M SINCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5068. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-4PM.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/David M Sinclair/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848