DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/3/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
As to applicants amended claims filed on 2/3/26, the previous 112(f) claim interpretation has been withdrawn as applicants have provided an amendment which clarifies the structure in the claims.
Based on applicants amended claims and remarks filed on 2/3/26, the previous 101 rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
Regarding the claim amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 101 based on the following analysis
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of calculating a positional relationship based on detected current values which is a mental process and/or math. Although the calculating is performed by a computer, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III is clear that using a computer/controller to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. After the positional relationship is calculated, then the speed of a container is very generally controlled “based on” the calculated positional relationship. However, note that there are no particulars of the speed, direction, or of the position and this is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally “applying” (i.e. “based on”) the abstract idea per MPEP 2106.05(f), and also is just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which are not particular practical applications.
The calculating is performed by a computer, but performing the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)I.).
The claim also recites a container on a transport surface and providing voltage to a plurality of coils under the surface with a coil drive, and a plurality of current detectors to measure the current/inductance. However, this is just using the device to gather data to be used in the abstract idea of calculating the position. However, data gathering to be used in the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
The claim recites the additional elements of a container on a transport surface and providing voltage to a plurality of coils under the surface with a coil drive, and a plurality of current detectors to detect a current. These additional elements do not amount to significantly more as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art as evidenced by Translation of JPH10-206104 (hereinafter “Macome”; already of record). Macome teaches a sample container configured to accommodate a sample and provided with a permanent magnet (Macome teaches a moving element; [4]); a transport surface on which the sample container is to be transported (Macome teaches a transport surface; Fig. 3); a plurality of coils disposed on a surface of the transport surface, each coil being disposed around a magnetic core and having a winding wire (Macome; [12]); a coil drive unit connected to the winding wire of each coil and configured to apply a voltage to the coils (Macome; [12-14]); a plurality of current detectors each connected to the winding wire of each coil, respectively, and configured to detect a current flowing through each coil, wherein the current flowing through each coil is based on an inductance of the winding wire of each coil, respectively, which varies based on a position of the permanent magnet provided on the sample container (Macome teaches a detection circuit to detect current and corresponding position; [12-14]. Macome also teaches detection coils L1; [12, 31-33, 54-55], Fig. 7, 11, 15, 18. Macome teaches the inductance change is detected [12-14, 51-53, 58] which is what is used to determine the position); and a computer configured to: control the coil drive unit to simultaneously apply voltage pulses having a phase difference of about 90 degrees to a pair of adjacent coils, among the plurality of coils, in a transport path ahead of the sample container, measure the inductance of the winding wires of the pair of adjacent coils, based on the current values detected by the current detectors of the pair of adjacent coils, respectively, calculate a relative positional relationship between the pair of adjacent coils and the permanent magnet provided on the sample container based on the current values detected by the current detectors of the pair of adjacent coils (Macome teaches that voltage is provided [54], and when the detection coils are phase shifted by 90 degrees that the position can be interpolated/estimated; [55].), control a transport speed of the sample container by providing a thrust command based on the calculated relative positional relationship to the coil drive unit to drive the sample container along the transport path (Macome teaches providing voltage to the coils to create movement which would control the thrust/speed; [12, 27, 53], Fig. 2). The examiner also directs applicants attention to and Koga et al (US 20180079605; hereinafter “Koga”; already of record) and Wakabayashi, T (Translation of WO 2019225284; hereinafter “Wakabayashi”) in the prior art rejections below for evidence that the additional elements are WURC.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “control the coil drive unit to simultaneously apply voltage pulses having a phase difference of about 90 degrees to a pair of adjacent coils, among the plurality of coils, in a transport path ahead of the sample container” (see the first clause on the second page of claim 1). Support for the newly added limitation of the instant claims was not found by the examiner in the original disclosure. Specifically, there is no discussion of “simultaneously” applying voltages anywhere in the disclosure. The original disclosure also does not discuss “about” 90 degrees, and only provides an example of 90 degrees in [33] of the instant specification. The original disclosure also does not discuss applying voltage to a “pair” or “plurality” of coils that are “in a transport path ahead of” the sample container as no discussion of the pair or controlling multiple coils ahead of the container are recited. In [29] of the instant specification, there is the recitation that one coil near the transport path is controlled, and in [33] of the instant specification there is discussion of controlling the phase difference between adjacent coils but at least one of the coils appears to be the position at which the sample is currently located and they are not multiple coils ahead of the path. Thus, the limitation is considered new matter. Claim 2 is rejected based on further claim dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as it has been amended to recite a phase difference of “about” 90 degrees. However, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not recite the term “about” or provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A potential infringer would not be able to determine what degrees would or would not read on “about” 90 degrees since the original disclosure does not provide support for determining the constraints of this term. Claim 2 is rejected based on further claim dependency.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Translation of JPH10-206104 (hereinafter “Macome”; already of record).
As to claims 1-2, Macome teaches a sample transport device (Macome; abstract) comprising:
a sample container configured to accommodate a sample and provided with a permanent magnet (Macome teaches a moving element; [4]);
a transport surface on which the sample container is to be transported (Macome teaches a transport surface; Fig. 3);
a plurality of coils disposed on a surface of the transport surface, each coil being disposed around a magnetic core and having a winding wire (Macome; [12]);
a coil drive unit connected to the winding wire of each coil and configured to apply a voltage to the coils (Macome; [12-14]);
a plurality of current detectors each connected to the winding wire of each coil, respectively, and configured to detect a current flowing through each coil, wherein the current flowing through each coil is based on an inductance of the winding wire of each coil, respectively, which varies based on a position of the permanent magnet provided on the sample container (Macome teaches a detection circuit to detect current and corresponding position; [12-14]. Macome also teaches detection coils L1; [12, 31-33, 54-55], Fig. 7, 11, 15, 18. Macome teaches the inductance change is detected [12-14, 51-53, 58] which is what is used to determine the position); and
a computer configured to: control the coil drive unit to simultaneously apply voltage pulses having a phase difference of about 90 degrees to a pair of adjacent coils, among the plurality of coils, in a transport path ahead of the sample container, measure the inductance of the winding wires of the pair of adjacent coils, based on the current values detected by the current detectors of the pair of adjacent coils, respectively, calculate a relative positional relationship between the pair of adjacent coils and the permanent magnet provided on the sample container based on the current values detected by the current detectors of the pair of adjacent coils (Macome teaches that voltage is provided [54], and when the detection coils are phase shifted by 90 degrees that the position can be interpolated/estimated; [55].), control a transport speed of the sample container by providing a thrust command based on the calculated relative positional relationship to the coil drive unit to drive the sample container along the transport path (Macome teaches providing voltage to the coils to create movement which would control the thrust/speed; [12, 27, 53], Fig. 2).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga et al (US 20180079605; hereinafter “Koga”; already of record) in view of Matsui, T (US 20190288633; hereinafter “Matsui”; already of record).
As to claims 1-2, Macome teaches a sample transport device (Koga; Fig. 1-32) comprising:
a sample container configured to accommodate a sample and provided with a permanent magnet (Koga teaches a container/carrier 200 that supports an object as a sample; [52, 68]. Koga teaches a permanent magnet; [106, 230]);
a transport surface on which the sample container is to be transported (Koga teaches container transported on surface; Fig. 1-32);
a plurality of coils disposed on a surface of the transport surface, each coil being disposed around a magnetic core and having a winding wire (Koga; [228-233]);
a coil drive unit connected to the winding wire of each coil and configured to apply a voltage to the coils (Koga; [231]);
a plurality of current detectors each connected to the winding wire of each coil, respectively, and configured to detect a current flowing through each coil, wherein the current flowing through each coil is based on an inductance of the winding wire of each coil, respectively, which varies based on a position of the permanent magnet provided on the sample container (Koga; [319-321]); and
a computer configured to: control the coil drive unit to simultaneously apply voltage pulses having a phase difference to a pair of adjacent coils, among the plurality of coils, in a transport path ahead of the sample container, measure the inductance of the winding wires of the pair of adjacent coils, based on the current values detected by the current detectors of the pair of adjacent coils, respectively, calculate a relative positional relationship between the pair of adjacent coils and the permanent magnet provided on the sample container based on the current values detected by the current detectors of the pair of adjacent coils, control a transport speed of the sample container by providing a thrust command based on the calculated relative positional relationship to the coil drive unit to drive the sample container along the transport path (Koga teaches supplying a voltage having a phase difference to generate thrust along the conveying path; [105, 231]. Koga teaches generating voltage pulses to estimate the position based on a current change; [308, 309, 319-321])).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Koga does not specifically teach wherein the phase difference is 90 degrees. Matsui teaches the analogous art of moving an object via electromagnetism, where the voltage pulse is 90 degrees (Matsui; [22]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the phase angle difference to generate thrust along the path of Koga to be 90 degrees as in Matsui because Matsui teaches that using a 90 degree phase difference is known to assist in generating thrust (Matsui; [22]) and because Matsui teaches this also providing the advantage of reducing the unevenness of the thrust (Matsui; [22]).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi, T (Translation of WO 2019225284; hereinafter “Wakabayashi”) in view of Matsui, T (US 20190288633; hereinafter “Matsui”; already of record).
As to claims 1-2, Wakabayashi teaches a sample transport device (Wakabayashi; Fig. 1-7) comprising:
a sample container configured to accommodate a sample and provided with a permanent magnet (Wakabayashi teaches movable element 20 capable of moving a sample and having a permanent magnet; Fig. 1-2, [68]);
a transport surface on which the sample container is to be transported (Wakabayashi; Fig. 1-7);
a plurality of coils disposed on a surface of the transport surface, each coil being disposed around a magnetic core and having a winding wire (Wakabayashi; Fig. 1-7, [45, 46, 66-69]);
a plurality of current detectors each connected to the winding wire of each coil, respectively, and configured to detect a current flowing through each coil, wherein the current flowing through each coil is based on an inductance of the winding wire of each coil, respectively, which varies based on a position of the permanent magnet provided on the sample container (Wakabayashi; Fig. 1-7, [45, 46, 66-69]); and
a computer configured to: control the coil drive unit to simultaneously apply voltage pulses to a pair of adjacent coils, among the plurality of coils, in a transport path ahead of the sample container, measure the inductance of the winding wires of the pair of adjacent coils, based on the current values detected by the current detectors of the pair of adjacent coils, respectively, calculate a relative positional relationship between the pair of adjacent coils and the permanent magnet provided on the sample container based on the current values detected by the current detectors of the pair of adjacent coils, control a transport speed of the sample container by providing a thrust command based on the calculated relative positional relationship to the coil drive unit to drive the sample container along the transport path (Wakabayashi; Fig. 1-7, [45, 46, 66-69]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Wakabayashi Heise does not specifically teach wherein the voltage pulses include a phase difference is 90 degrees. Matsui teaches the analogous art of moving an object via electromagnetism, where the voltage pulse is 90 degrees (Matsui; [22]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the voltage for sensing location and to generate thrust along the path of Wakabayashi to be 90 degrees phase difference as in Matsui because Matsui teaches that using a 90 degree phase difference is known to assist in generating thrust (Matsui; [22]) and because Matsui teaches this also providing the advantage of reducing the unevenness of the thrust (Matsui; [22]).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi, T (Translation of WO 2019225284; hereinafter “Wakabayashi”) in view of Translation of JPH10-206104 (hereinafter “Macome”; already of record).
As to claims 1-2, Wakabayashi teaches a sample transport device (Wakabayashi; Fig. 1-7) comprising:
a sample container configured to accommodate a sample and provided with a permanent magnet (Wakabayashi teaches movable element 20 capable of moving a sample and having a permanent magnet; Fig. 1-2, [68]);
a transport surface on which the sample container is to be transported (Wakabayashi; Fig. 1-7);
a plurality of coils disposed on a surface of the transport surface, each coil being disposed around a magnetic core and having a winding wire (Wakabayashi; Fig. 1-7, [45, 46, 66-69]);
a plurality of current detectors each connected to the winding wire of each coil, respectively, and configured to detect a current flowing through each coil, wherein the current flowing through each coil is based on an inductance of the winding wire of each coil, respectively, which varies based on a position of the permanent magnet provided on the sample container (Wakabayashi; Fig. 1-7, [45, 46, 66-69]); and
a computer configured to: control the coil drive unit to simultaneously apply voltage pulses to a pair of adjacent coils, among the plurality of coils, in a transport path ahead of the sample container, measure the inductance of the winding wires of the pair of adjacent coils, based on the current values detected by the current detectors of the pair of adjacent coils, respectively, calculate a relative positional relationship between the pair of adjacent coils and the permanent magnet provided on the sample container based on the current values detected by the current detectors of the pair of adjacent coils, control a transport speed of the sample container by providing a thrust command based on the calculated relative positional relationship to the coil drive unit to drive the sample container along the transport path (Wakabayashi; Fig. 1-7, [45, 46, 66-69]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Wakabayashi Heise does not specifically teach wherein the voltage pulses include a phase difference is 90 degrees. Macome teaches the analogous art of moving an object via electromagnetism, with coils and drive units to apply voltage to the coils, and where there are current detectors to detect current and position of the moved object, where there is a 90 degree phase difference applied to adjacent coils (Macome; [12-14, 27, 31-33, 51-55, 58], Fig. 3, 7, 11, 15, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the voltage for sensing location and to generate thrust along the path of Wakabayashi to be 90 degrees phase difference as in Macome because Macome teaches that using a 90 degree phase difference is known to increase the resolution of position detection (Macome; [55]).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Heise et al (US 20140234065; hereinafter “Heise”; already of record) teaches electromagnetic actuated transport device for sample carriers; [44, 50, 62, 74], Fig. 1-5.
Sinz et al (US 20170184622; hereinafter “Sinz”; already of record) teaches a electromagnetic actuated transport device for sample carriers; [29], Fig. 1.
Yagci et al (US 20140373747; hereinafter “Yagci”; already of record) teaches a sample transport system that is electromagnetically actuated; Figs. 2-3, 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/26 have been fully considered but are moot because they are towards the amended claims and not the current ground of rejection.
Applicants argue on pages 5-6 of their remarks that claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because it recites structure and provides a thrust command based on the calculation. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under step 2A prong Two, after the positional relationship is calculated, then the speed of a container is very generally controlled “based on” the calculated positional relationship. However, note that there are no particulars of the speed, direction, or of the position and this is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally “applying” (i.e. “based on”) the abstract idea per MPEP 2106.05(f), and also is just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which are not particular practical applications. Although the claim recites structure, that structure is used to gather data. Specifically, the claim recites a container on a transport surface and providing voltage to a plurality of coils under the surface with a coil drive, and a plurality of current detectors to measure the current/inductance. However, this is just using the device to gather data to be used in the abstract idea of calculating the position. However, data gathering to be used in the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Because the examiner is relying on the same prior art, the examiner has addressed applicants’ arguments with respect to the prior art rejections in order to advance prosecution.
Applicants argue on page 7 of their remarks that Macome does not teach the amended claim language and appear to argue that because Macome teaches grooves that Macome does not read on the claim language. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the claims do not preclude grooves on the surface. Further, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In this case, the arguments have not discussed why the cited portions of Koga do not teach the claimed invention. The examiner maintains that Macome the claims (see rejection above).
Applicants argue on page 7 of their remarks that Koga does not teach the amended claims. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In this case, the arguments have not discussed why the cited portions of Koga do not teach the claimed invention. The examiner maintains that Koga in view of Matsui teaches the claims (see rejection above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights