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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment filed 11/5/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-15 remain pending in the application and claims 2 and 12 remain cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to claims 9-11 have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 7/28/2025 and accordingly, the 112(b) rejections of claims 9-11 and 15 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/5/2025 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 8-9 of Remarks that Tamaoki et al. discloses that pressure of the storeroom is set higher than that or an outside space of the incubator and does not teach that pressure in the storeroom is lower than pressure of the outside air as recited in the claimed invention. This is not persuasive. Tamaoki et al. discloses that the pressure in the incubation room can be set higher than air pressure outside the incubator (para. 0033), and does not explicitly teach away from setting pressure inside the incubation room lower than outside air pressure. Tamaoki et al. also discloses “pressure adjustment means” which allows the pressure to be set by the user (para. 0033), and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that adjusting the pressure can include setting the pressure to higher or lower than the outside air, even if Tamaoki et al. discloses using the invention in a higher pressure setting (preferred embodiment).
Applicant argues on p. 9 of Remarks that the anticipation rejection of claim 1 is improper as claim 1 does not recite that the claimed invention is capable of “an operating state at which a pressure in the interior of the laboratory device is lower than the ambient pressure in the environment around the laboratory device and at which operating state air is encouraged from within the outer housing of the laboratory device into the environment around the laboratory device”. This is not persuasive because this limitation is a recitation of the intended use of the apparatus and does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. It has been held that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (MPEP § 2114 II), and using the claimed device to create a negative pressure difference between the interior of the incubator and the outside air does not introduce a structural difference between the prior art and the claimed invention as Tamaoki et al. teaches all the structural limitations recited in claim 1. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the device of Tamaoki et al. is capable of creating a pressure difference as recited in claim 1 of the instant application, as Tamaoki et al. discloses pressure adjustment means (para. 0032) in addition to teaching all the structural limitations recited in claim 1 (an incubator, a fan, and a pump), and only differs in how the device is used. No evidence otherwise has been provided.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"thermal insulation component" in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamaoki et al. (US 2005/0084956 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device, wherein the laboratory device is an incubator (abstract “incubator”) comprising: an outer housing (Fig. 4 11 outer box) which defines an interior of the laboratory device (Fig. 4 4 incubation room); and an apparatus for generating a pressure difference between an ambient pressure in an environment around the laboratory device and the interior of the laboratory device, wherein the apparatus for generating the pressure difference comprises a fan (Fig. 4 18 circulation fan) and a pump (Fig. 4 32 suction pump).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the apparatus operates to give rise to an operating state at which a pressure in the interior of the laboratory device is lower than the ambient pressure in the environment around the laboratory device and at which operating state air is encouraged from within the outer housing of the laboratory device into the environment around the laboratory device”, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Tamaoki et al. would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to have a fan, a pump, and pressure adjustment means (para. 0032) to circulate air through the device (para. 0013) and would be structurally capable of giving rise to an operating state at which a pressure in the interior of the laboratory device is lower than the ambient pressure in the environment around the laboratory device and at which operating state air is encouraged from within the outer housing of the laboratory device into the environment around the laboratory device absent clear evidence otherwise.
Regarding claim 3, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device wherein the apparatus for generating the pressure difference is capable of conveying gas from the interior of the device into the environment around the laboratory device, wherein the laboratory device has a filter (Fig. 4 33 suction filter), wherein the filter is arranged between an outlet of the apparatus for generating the pressure difference and the environment around the laboratory device (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device wherein the laboratory device has an inner housing (Fig. 4 12 inner box) which defines a chamber (Fig. 4 17 air passage), wherein, in the operating state, the pressure in the interior of the device is present in a region that is delimited outside by the outer housing and inside by the inner housing, and wherein the pressure in the interior of the device is less than a pressure in the chamber.
Regarding the limitation “in the operating state, the pressure in the interior of the device is present in a region that is delimited outside by the outer housing and inside by the inner housing, and wherein the pressure in the interior of the device is less than a pressure in the chamber”, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Tamaoki et al. would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to have a fan, a pump, and pressure adjustment means (para. 0032) to circulate air through the device (para. 0013) and would be structurally capable of operating in a state such that the pressure in the interior of the device is present in a region that is delimited outside by the outer housing and inside by the inner housing, and wherein the pressure in the interior of the device is less than a pressure in the chamber absent clear evidence otherwise.
Regarding claim 6, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device wherein the outer housing comprises: a side housing (Fig. 4 11 outer box side wall, seen in Fig. 1); a rear housing (Fig. 4 11 outer box rear wall where 33 suction filter is connected); a ceiling housing (Fig. 4 11 outer box upper wall at reference number 11); a lower housing (Fig. 4 11 outer box lower wall near reference number 4); and a door housing (Fig. 4 3 adiabatic door), wherein the rear housing and the door housing are arranged at opposite ends of the laboratory device (Fig. 4 3 adiabatic door opposite 11 outer box rear wall where 33 suction filter is connected), wherein the inner housing comprises: side walls (Fig. 4 12 inner box; para. 0011 “inner box… left and right side faces”); a back wall (Fig. 4 12 inner box wall where 31b end opening is connected); a lower wall (Fig. 4 12 inner box wall above 13B heater); a ceiling wall (Fig. 4 12 inner box upper wall); and a door portion (Fig. 4 7 inner door), wherein the laboratory device is capable of generating a negative pressure in a door region which is delimited by the door housing and the door portion.
Regarding the limitation “generate a negative pressure in a door region which is delimited by the door housing and the door portion”, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Tamaoki et al. would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to have a fan, a pump, and pressure adjustment means (para. 0032) to circulate air through the device (para. 0013) and would be structurally capable of generating a negative pressure in a door region which is delimited by the door housing and the door portion absent clear evidence otherwise.
Regarding claim 7, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device wherein the laboratory device comprises at least one hose (Fig. 4 31 suction tube) which fluidly connects the apparatus for generating the pressure difference to at least one other region (31 suction tube connects 32 suction pump to 4 incubation room).
Regarding claim 11, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device comprising a control unit (Fig. 4 S controller) which is capable of adjusting a conveying capacity of the apparatus for generating the pressure difference in response to an operating mode of the laboratory device, as the circulation fan (18) is controlled by the controller (para. 0026; para. 0032 “pressure adjustment means”).
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 4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaoki et al. (US 2005/0084956 A1) (already of record) in view of Wong et al. (US 2020/0182774 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 4, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device, but is silent to wherein the laboratory device has a total volume in the range of 0.1 m3 to 2.5 m3. However, Wong et al. teaches a laboratory device that has a volume in the range of 0.1 m3 to 2.5 m3 (para. 0103 “0.03 m3 to 3 m3”). Wong et al. teaches that an incubator of this volume can store a plurality of cell culture vessels in one space (para. 0104). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Wong et al. configuration of a laboratory device that has a volume in the range of 0.1 m3 to 2.5 m3 in Tamaoki et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would store a plurality of cell culture vessels in one space. This method for improving Tamaoki et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Wong et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaoki et al. and Wong et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device, but is silent to wherein the laboratory device has a total volume in the range of 0.2 m3 to 1.0 m3. However, Wong et al. teaches a laboratory device that has a volume in the range of 0.2 m3 to 1.0 m3 (para. 0103 “0.03 m3 to 3 m3”). Wong et al. teaches that an incubator of this volume can store a plurality of cell culture vessels in one space (para. 0104). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Wong et al. configuration of a laboratory device that has a volume in the range of 0.2 m3 to 1.0 m3 in Tamaoki et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would store a plurality of cell culture vessels in one space. This method for improving Tamaoki et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Wong et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaoki et al. and Wong et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device, but is silent to wherein the laboratory device total volume in the range of 0.4 m3 to 0.8 m3. However, Wong et al. teaches a laboratory device that has a volume in the range of 0.4 m3 to 0.8 m3 (para. 0103 “0.03 m3 to 3 m3”). Wong et al. teaches that an incubator of this volume can store a plurality of cell culture vessels in one space (para. 0104). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Wong et al. configuration of a laboratory device that has a volume in the range of 0.4 m3 to 0.8 m3 in Tamaoki et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would store a plurality of cell culture vessels in one space. This method for improving Tamaoki et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Wong et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaoki et al. and Wong et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaoki et al. (US 2005/0084956 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 8, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device wherein the laboratory device has an inner housing which defines a chamber, wherein, in the operating state, the pressure in the interior of the device is present in a region that is delimited outside by the outer housing and inside by the inner housing, and wherein the pressure in the interior of the device is capable of being less than a pressure in the chamber, wherein the outer housing comprises: a side housing (Fig. 4 11 outer box side wall, seen in Fig. 1); a rear housing (Fig. 4 11 outer box rear wall where 33 suction filter is connected); a ceiling housing (Fig. 4 11 outer box upper wall at reference number 11); a lower housing (Fig. 4 11 outer box lower wall near reference number 4); and a door housing (Fig. 4 3 adiabatic door), wherein the rear housing and the door housing are arranged at opposite ends of the laboratory device (Fig. 4 3 adiabatic door opposite 11 outer box rear wall where 33 suction filter is connected), wherein the inner housing comprises: side walls (Fig. 4 12 inner box; para. 0011 “inner box… left and right side faces”); a back wall (Fig. 4 12 inner box wall where 31b end opening is connected); a lower wall (Fig. 4 12 inner box wall above 13B heater); a ceiling wall (Fig. 4 12 inner box upper wall); and a door portion (Fig. 4 7 inner door), wherein the laboratory device is capable of generating a negative pressure in a door region which is delimited by the door housing and the door portion, wherein the laboratory device comprises at least one hose (Fig. 4 31 suction tube) which fluidly connects the apparatus for generating the pressure difference to at least one other region (31 suction tube connects 32 suction pump to 4 incubation room).
Regarding the limitations “in the operating state, the pressure in the interior of the device is present in a region that is delimited outside by the outer housing and inside by the inner housing, and wherein the pressure in the interior of the device is less than a pressure in the chamber” and “generate a negative pressure in a door region which is delimited by the door housing and the door portion”, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Tamaoki et al. would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to have a fan, a pump, and pressure adjustment means (para. 0032) to circulate air through the device (para. 0013) and would be structurally capable of the pressure in the interior of the device being less than a pressure in the chamber and generating a negative pressure in a door region which is delimited by the door housing and the door portion absent clear evidence otherwise.
Tamaoki et al. does not teach that at least one hose fluidly connects the door region and the apparatus for generating the pressure difference. Nonetheless, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). Modifying the device of Tamaoki et al. such that the hose (suction tube) connects the fan and pump to the door region would amount to merely rearrangement of parts, as such a modification would predictably result in an incubator that can transfer gas to air outside the incubator from the door region and circulate air in the door region of the incubator, absent clear evidence otherwise.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaoki et al. (US 2005/0084956 A1) (already of record) in view of Miltenburger et al. (US 4,649,114) (already of record).
Regarding claim 9, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device comprising at least one hose (Fig. 4 31 suction tube), but does not teach wherein the at least one hose is made of a material that has a temperature resistance of about 220°C. However, Miltenburger et al. teaches a hose that is made of a material that has a temperature resistance of about 220°C (Col. 6, line 67-Col. 7, line 1 “tubes, hoses…polytetrafluoroethylene”). Fluoroplastics, Volume 2 (already of record) discloses that polytetrafluoroethylene has a melting point over 220°C (Table 4.2), making it fully capable of temperature resistance of about 220°C. Miltenburger et al. teaches that a tube or hose made of polytetrafluoroethylene allows for maximum propagation of cells (Col. 7, lines 3-4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Miltenburger et al. configuration of a tube/hose made of polytetrafluoroethylene in Tamaoki et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would have a temperature resistance of about 220°C and allow for maximum propagation of cells. This method for improving Tamaoki et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Miltenburger et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaoki et al. and Miltenburger et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaoki et al. (US 2005/0084956 A1) (already of record) in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0102373 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 10, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device comprising at least one thermal insulation component (Fig. 4 14 heat insulating material), but does not teach wherein the at least one thermal insulation component has a final layer which seals the at least one thermal insulation component, wherein the final layer comprises a film, wherein the film has a temperature resistance of about 300°C. However, Huang et al. teaches a thermal insulation component (abstract “heat-insulation structure”) that has a final layer which seals the at least one thermal insulation component, wherein the final layer comprises a film (para. 0008 “surface layer film”), wherein the film has a temperature resistance of about 300°C (para. 0039 “plastic film”). Plastic Injection Molding, Volume I (already of record) discloses that plastic has a melting point over 220°C (Table III-1), making it fully capable of temperature resistance of about 300°C. Huang et al. teaches that the heat-insulation structure with a plurality of layers increases the effect of heat insulation (para. 0022). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Huang et al. configuration of a thermal insulation component including a film layer that has a temperature resistance of about 300°C in Tamaoki et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would increase the effect of heat insulation. This method for improving Tamaoki et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Huang et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaoki et al. and Huang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaoki et al. (US 2005/0084956 A1) (already of record) in view of Osawa et al. (US 2009/0221064 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 15, Tamaoki et al. teaches a laboratory device wherein the control unit has a first operating mode wherein only the fan is active in the first operating mode (para. 0026 “circulation fan… controlled by a controller”), and wherein the control unit is capable of controlling the fan when a temperature limit value is reached (para. 0026 “temperature sensor… heaters… controlled by a controller”). Tamaoki et al. does not teach wherein the control unit is capable of a second operating mode wherein both the fan and the pump are active.
However, Osawa et al. teaches a control unit that is capable of an operating mode wherein both a fan and a pump are active (para. 0061). Osawa et al. teaches that both the fan and the pump being active at the same time allows sterile gas to spread throughout the cultivation room and reliably sterilize the whole cultivation room (para. 0069). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Osawa et al. configuration of a control unit that is capable of an operating mode wherein both a fan and a pump are active in Tamaoki et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow sterile gas to spread throughout the cultivation room and reliably sterilize the whole cultivation room. This method for improving Tamaoki et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Osawa et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaoki et al. and Osawa et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA whose telephone number is (703)756-5517. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights