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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 6 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
It is noted that the abstract begins with “Provided are”. The examiner suggests its deletion.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed to an apparatus. The examiner suggests amending the abstract to reflect same.
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.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed solely to an apparatus. The examiner suggests amending the title to reflect same.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2023-180664 (see English Translation) in view of JP 2013-207264 (see English Translation).
JP’664 teaches method for molding an incremental sheet (title) in which a mechanism that supports the jig 30 and the sheet material 40, and a mechanism that processes the sheet material 40 (p.2 4th paragraph). Specifically, the support mechanism includes a casing 21, a base 23 installed inside the casing 21, and a support part that is placed on the base 23 and holds the jig 30 and the sheet material 40 in the vertical direction as well as a functional lower template 241, a blank holder 242, and a presser plate 243, all of which are made of metal, and a fastener 25 that fastens these to position the jig 30 and the sheet material 40 (p.2 5th paragraph and Figure 2C). It is specifically noted that jig 30 has an end portion outside the to-be coated region (Figure 3). However, while the reference teaches a clamping member 261, it fails to specifically teach fixing.
JP’264 teaches a clamping device (title) in which a clamping jig 20 is used to fix the body to a support position (p.2 5th paragraph). It would have been obvious to utilize a clamping member which also fixed a body as taught in JP’264 in the apparatus of JP’664 with the expectation of success because JP’264 teaches of using a clamp which also fixes the body.
Regarding claim 2, JP’664 teaches a support platform (Figure 3).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2023-180664 (see English Translation) and JP 2013-207264 (see English Translation) and further in view of JP 2021-30566 (see English Translation). The combination of JP’664/JP’264 fails to teach an adhesive sheet.
JP’566 teaches an apparatus which a laminated jig 40 is fixed to an electrode using an adhesive (p.5 last paragraph). It would have been obvious to utilize an adhesive in the combination with the expectation of success because JP’566 teaches of using an adhesive with a jig.
Regarding claim 4, JP’566 teaches a height (Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 5, JP’566 teaches magnets (p.4 paragraph 9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 05/16/2026
Prosecution Insights