`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`13/383,694
`
`01/12/2012
`
`Hiroshi Saiki
`
`MAT—10537US
`
`3432
`
`EXAMINER
`RATNERPRESTIA —
`W0” —
`”90
`52473
`PO BOX 980
`FAROKHROOZ,FAT1MA N
`VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482-0980
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`28 89
`
`
`
`
`NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/27/2014
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ptocorrespondence @ratnerprestia.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 13/383,694 SAIKI ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`FATIMA FAROKHROOZ [SENS 2889
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/11/14
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| Claim(s)_120 Is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'I’\WIIW.usnto. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) E InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 2/4/14.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20140316
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/383,694
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2889
`
`Detailed Action
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`The amendment filed on 3/11/14 is acknowledged.
`
`Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`Claim Objection
`
`The limitations of claim 2 do not further limit the independent claim 1 as the limitations of “the
`
`projection projects to a thickness of 0.1 to 0.3 mm from the top end face” have already been
`
`included in claim 1 as amendment. Therefore claim 2 needs to be canceled. Appropriate
`
`correction is needed.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
`a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be
`negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Claims 1-5 ,10-15 and 18- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Lausch (US 4853596) in view of in view of Choi (US 6255764) and Han (US 20050110393)
`
`Regarding claims 1 and 2 , Lausch teaches a flash discharge tube electrode (see Fig.3)
`
`sealed to an end of a glass bulb of a flash discharge tube, comprising: an internal electrode led
`
`into the glass bulb (2 and 8); a sintered electrode structure 3 connected to a top end of the
`
`internal electrode, with an external diameter equal to or smaller than an external diameter of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/383,694
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2889
`
`internal electrode; and a projection 4 made of a high-melting-point metal, provided so as to
`
`partially project from a top end face of the sintered electrode structure.
`
`Although, the term "high-melting-point" in claim 1
`
`is a relative term not defined by the
`
`claim, yet, since it is well known and also disclosed by Lausch that high heat is generated in
`
`discharge lamps, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to use a high-melting point electrode tip, in order to prevent melting of the
`
`electrode in the high temperature discharge environment.
`
`Further for claims 1 and 2, Lausch is silent regarding the projection projects to a thickness
`
`of 0.1 to 0.3 mm from the top end face.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches the projection 14 projects to a thickness of 0.1
`
`to 0.3 mm from the top end face in order to optimize the diffusion path.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to use the thickness as disclosed by Choi, in the device of Lausch in order
`
`to optimize the diffusion path.
`
`Lausch in view of Choi is silent regarding the sintered electrode structure includes a
`
`cesium compound (for claim 1).
`
`However, since Choi teaches a material such as Nickel for the sintered electrode structure
`
`and in the same field of endeavor of disclosure of various materials suitable for electron
`
`emitters, Han teaches that the emitter material can be Ni or Cesium compound ([0015]),
`
`therefore the particular type of material used to make the electrode, absent any criticality, is only
`
`considered to be the use of a “ preferred ” or “ optimum ” material out of a plurality of well-known
`
`materials that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would
`
`have find obvious to provide using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the
`
`intended use of Applicant’s apparatus, i.e., suitability for the intended use of Applicant’s
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/383,694
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2889
`
`apparatus since a selection of a material on the basis of suitability for intended use of an
`
`apparatus would be entirely obvious as disclosed by Han.
`
`Regarding Claim 3, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches the invention set forth
`
`above (see rejection in Claim 1 above). Lausch in view of Choi and Han is silent regarding the
`
`projection to cover 20% to 60% of an area size of the top end face.
`
`However, since Lausch
`
`already teaches that the projection width is much smaller than the base portion 3, therefore it
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made,
`
`to use the projection coverage between 20-60%, since where the general conditions of a claim
`
`are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the
`
`art.
`
`Regarding Claim 4, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches a flash discharge tube
`
`electrode, wherein the projection is formed on the top end face (see Fig.3 of Lausch).
`
`Regarding Claim 5, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches a flash discharge tube
`
`electrode, wherein the top end face 7 further has a depressed part, and wherein a part of the
`
`projection 6 is embedded in the depressed part (see Fig.2 of Lausch).
`
`Regarding Claim 10, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches a flash discharge tube
`
`electrode, wherein the internal electrode and the projection are separate components each
`
`other (as disclosed by Lausch and Choi).
`
`Regarding Claim 11, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches a flash discharge tube
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/383,694
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2889
`
`electrode, wherein the internal electrode and the projection are separated via the sintered
`
`electrode structure (as disclosed by Choi, Note: further the limitation of “sintered” is drawn to the
`
`method of making the electrode and does not differentiate the structure of the prior art from the
`
`claimed electrode).
`
`Regarding Claims 12 -14, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches a flash discharge tube
`
`electrode, wherein the projection is welded to the sintered electrode structure (for claim 12) , the
`
`projection is welded to the internal electrode (for claim 13) and the sintered electrode structure
`
`is welded to the internal electrode so as to maximize a contact area between the sintered
`
`electrode structure and the internal electrode (for claim 14). (Note: the limitation of “welded” is
`
`drawn to the method of bonding the two elements and does not differentiate the structural
`
`limitations of the prior art from the claimed electrode).
`
`Regarding Claims 15, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches a flash discharge tube
`
`electrode, wherein the internal electrode is made of tungsten (see material for 2 in Lausch)
`
`Further, tunsgten is a well-known material used for electrode, therefore it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to use tungsten as
`
`material for the constituent elements 2 or 8 of Lausch in order to maintain high melting point.
`
`Regarding Claim 18, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches a flash discharge tube
`
`electrode, wherein the sintered electrode structure includes cesium oxide (as disclosed by Han,
`
`also see rejection in claim 1 above).
`
`Regarding Claim 19, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches a flash discharge tube
`
`electrode, wherein the projection occupies less than all of the face of the top end of the sintered
`
`electrode (Fig.3 of Lausch).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/383,694
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2889
`
`Regarding Claim 20, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches a flash discharge tube
`
`electrode, wherein the top end of the internal electrode being exposed in the glass bulb (Fig.3 of
`
`Lausch)
`
`Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lausch in view of
`
`Choi and Han and further in view of Aizawa (US 5572088)
`
`Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in
`
`Claim 1 above).
`
`Lausch in view of Choi and Han is silent regarding a part of the projection is embedded in
`
`the sintered electrode structure and the projection is in contact with the internal electrode.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Aizawa teaches the projection is embedded in the sintered
`
`electrode structure and the projection is in contact with the internal electrode in order to avoid
`
`malfunction by spattering (Fig.2).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to use the configuration as disclosed by Aizawa, in the device of Lausch in
`
`view of Choi and Han in order to avoid malfunction by spattering.
`
`Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lausch (US
`
`4853596) ,Choi (US 6255764) ,Han (US 20050110393) and Aizawa (US 5572088) in view of
`
`Harada (US 20010052755)
`
`Regarding Claim 7, Lausch in view of Choi, Han and Aizawa teaches the invention set
`
`forth above (see rejection in Claim 1 above).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/383,694
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2889
`
`Lausch in view of Choi, Han and Aizawa is silent regarding an external diameter of the
`
`part of the projection embedded in the sintered electrode structure is smaller than an external
`
`diameter of a part exposed outside the sintered electrode structure.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Harada teaches an external diameter of the part of the
`
`projection 22a (Fig.2) embedded in the sintered electrode structure is smaller than an external
`
`diameter of a part exposed outside the sintered electrode structure in order to achieve better
`
`heat dissipation ([0055]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to use the configuration as disclosed by Harada, in the device of Lausch in
`
`view of Choi, Han and Aizawa in order to achieve better heat dissipation.
`
`Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lausch in view
`
`of Choi and Han and further in view of Nakaya (US 5998921)
`
`Regarding Claim 8, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches that the electrode is sealed
`
`to one end of the glass bulb and a rod-shaped electrode (11, 12) is sealed to the other end of
`
`the glass bulb, and wherein the inside of the glass bulb is filled with a gas (also see rejection in
`
`Claim 1 above).
`
`Lausch in view of Choi and Han is silent regarding wherein a transparent trigger
`
`electrode is provided on an entire outer circumferential surface of the glass bulb and wherein
`
`the gas is a noble gas.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Nakaya teaches a transparent trigger electrode 6 is
`
`provided on an entire outer circumferential surface of the glass bulb and wherein the gas is a
`
`noble gas in order to achieve easier manufacturing process.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/383,694
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2889
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to use the external electrode as disclosed by Nakaya, in the device of
`
`Lausch in view of Choi and Han in order to achieve easier manufacturing process.
`
`Claim 9 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lausch in view
`
`of Choi and Han and further in view of Ko (US 20010045795)
`
`Regarding Claim 9, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches the invention set forth
`
`above (see rejection in claim 1 above)
`
`Lausch in view of Choi and Han is silent regarding the high- melting-point metal is
`
`selected from the group consisting of tungsten, molybdenum, tantalum and niobium.
`
`However, since in the same field of endeavor of disclosure of various materials suitable for
`
`electron emitters, Ko teaches a material such as either Nickel or a carbonate for emitter material
`
`([0015]), therefore particular type of material used to make the electrode, absent any criticality,
`
`is only considered to be the use of a “ preferred ” or “ optimum ” material out of a plurality of
`
`well-known materials that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`made would have find obvious to provide using routine experimentation based, among other
`
`things, on the intended use of Applicant’s apparatus, i.e., suitability for the intended use of
`
`Applicant’s apparatus since a selection of a material on the basis of suitability for intended use
`
`of an apparatus would be entirely obvious as disclosed by K0.
`
`Claims 16 and 17 are reiected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Lausch in view of Choi and Han and further in view of Nakagawa (US 200100192391
`
`Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Lausch in view of Choi and Han teaches the invention set
`
`forth above (see rejection in claim 1 above)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/383,694
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2889
`
`Lausch in view of Choi and Han is silent regarding the sintered electrode structure has
`
`holes therein (for claim 16) and wherein a porosity of the sintered electrode structure is 28 % to
`
`36% by volume (for claim 17).
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Nakagawa teaches an electrode wherein a porosity of the
`
`sintered electrode structure is 28 % to 36% by volume in order to improve lifetime ([0023])
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to use the porous electrode element as disclosed by Nakagawa, in the
`
`device of Lausch in view of Choi and Han in order to improve lifetime.
`
`Other Prior Art Cited
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
`
`disclosure: US 5606219 teaches sintered Cesium compound for the electrode material
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`The arguments filed by the Applicant on 3/11/14 is acknowledged regarding the
`
`amended claims, however they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
`
`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
`
`