DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/318,797, “FUEL CELL SYSTEM”, was filed with the USPTO on 5/17/2023 and has a foreign priority document of JP2022-082931 filed on 5/20/2022.
This office action is in response to communication filed on 5/8/2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 5/8/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. New claim 7 has been added. Claims 1-7 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-9 of copending Application No. 18/318,795 (hereinafter 795’) in view of Katano et al. (US 20100209797 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 795’ teaches a fuel cell system comprising (see claims 1 and 6 of 795’):
a fuel cell stack (line 2, claim 6 of 795’);
an oxygen tank; an oxygen pipe connecting the fuel cell stack and the oxygen tank; an oxygen regulator disposed in the oxygen pipe and configured to regulate a flow rate of oxygen to be supplied from the oxygen tank to a cathode of the fuel cell stack; an oxygen stop valve disposed in the oxygen pipe (see claim 6 of 795’); and
a controller, wherein the controller is configured to execute (line 7, claim 6 of 795’), when activating or stopping the fuel cell stack (when activating the fuel cell stack, see line 8, claim 6 of 795’; when stopping the fuel cell stack, see lines 1-2, claim 7 of 795’):
a first process of opening the oxygen stop valve and the oxygen regulator (a fourth process, line 9, claim 6 of 795’);
a second process of closing the oxygen stop valve and the oxygen regulator when a cathode internal pressure of the fuel cell stack reaches a predetermined first cathode pressure (a fifth process, lines 10-11, claim 6 of 795’); and
a third process of outputting a signal indicating occurrence of oxygen leakage when the cathode internal pressure after a predetermined period is lower than a predetermined second cathode pressure (a sixth process, lines 13-15, claim 6 of 795’).
795’ does not teach an injector is omitted from the oxygen pipe.
Katano et al. teaches an injector is omitted from the oxygen pipe (21, Fig. 1; note: there is no injector on 21, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the oxygen pipe taught by 795’ to be the oxygen pipe that an injector is omitted from as taught by Katano et al. because vibration and noise are sometimes unavoidably generated at the time when the injector is turned on/off (see Katano et al. [0004]).
Regarding Claim 2, 795’ in view of Katano et al. teaches further comprising:
an oxygen tank valve attached to the oxygen pipe between the oxygen stop valve and the oxygen tank; and an exhaust oxygen valve configured to stop discharge of gas from a cathode gas outlet of the fuel cell stack (see claim 8 of 795’), wherein
the controller is configured to, when stopping the fuel cell stack, before execution of the first process, the second process, and the third process (the fourth process, the fifth process, and the sixth process, see line 7, claim 8 of 795’), open the oxygen tank valve, the oxygen stop valve, the oxygen regulator, and the exhaust oxygen valve so as to discharge water remaining in the cathode from the fuel cell stack, and close the oxygen stop valve and the exhaust oxygen valve and, when an internal pressure of the oxygen pipe on an upstream side of the oxygen stop valve reaches an upper limit cathode pressure higher than the predetermined first cathode pressure, close the oxygen tank valve (see claim 8 of 795’).
Regarding Claim 3, 795’ in view of Katano et al. teaches further comprising an exhaust oxygen pipe connected to the cathode gas outlet, wherein the exhaust oxygen valve is provided in the exhaust oxygen pipe (see claim 9 of 795’).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5 and 7 are rejected over Yamamori et al. (US 20190148747 A1) in view of Hiroki et al. (JP2021034132A, provided in the IDS dated 5/17/2023), further in view of Shiokawa et al, (US 20160380294 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamori et al. teaches a fuel cell system (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a fuel cell stack (100, Fig. 1; stack structure see [0017]);
an oxygen pipe (210, Fig. 1, see [0021]) connecting the fuel cell stack (100, Fig. 1);
an oxygen regulator (240, Fig. 1) disposed in the oxygen pipe (210, Fig. 1, [0022]) and configured to regulate a flow rate of oxygen to be supplied from the oxygen tank to a cathode of the fuel cell stack (240 together with 250 regulates flow rate, see [0022]);
an oxygen stop valve (260, Fig. 1) disposed in the oxygen pipe (210, Fig. 1); and
a controller (720, Fig. 1), wherein
an injector is omitted from the oxygen pipe (210, Fig. 1; there is no injector on oxygen pipe 210, see Fig. 1); and
the controller (720, Fig. 1) is configured to execute (S110-S120, Fig. 2), when activating or stopping the fuel cell stack (stopping, [0029]):
a first process (S110, Fig. 2) of opening (in S110, Fig. 2, when stop instruction turned on (NO), 240 supplies air to 100, 260 and 240 open, see [0024], [0033]) the oxygen stop valve (260, Fig. 1) and the oxygen regulator (240, Fig. 1);
a second process (S120, Fig. 2) of closing (closes 260, 240 also stops, see [0034]) the oxygen stop valve (260, Fig. 1) and the oxygen regulator (240, Fig. 1).
Yamamori et al. does not teach comprising:
an oxygen tank;
an oxygen pipe connecting the oxygen tank;
a second process of closing the oxygen stop valve and the oxygen regulator when a cathode internal pressure of the fuel cell stack reaches a predetermined first cathode pressure;
a third process of outputting a signal indicating occurrence of oxygen leakage when the cathode internal pressure after a predetermined period is lower than a predetermined second cathode pressure.
Hiroki et al. teaches a fuel cell system (100, Fig. 1) comprising:
an oxygen tank (150, Fig. 1; [0023]);
an oxygen pipe (152, Fig. 1; [0024]) connecting the oxygen tank (150, Fig. 1; [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel cell system taught by Yamamori et al. by adding the oxygen tank on the oxygen pipe such that the oxygen pipe is connected to the oxygen tank as taught by Hiroki et al. to store oxygen at predetermined temperature and connects the oxygen tank with the supply port of air electrode (see Hiroki et al. [0023], [0024]).
Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. does not teach a second process of closing the oxygen stop valve and the oxygen regulator when a cathode internal pressure of the fuel cell stack reaches a predetermined first cathode pressure;
a third process of outputting a signal indicating occurrence of oxygen leakage when the cathode internal pressure after a predetermined period is lower than a predetermined second cathode pressure.
Shiokawa et al. teaches a second process (S220, Fig. 4) of closing the stop valve (53, Fig. 1) and the regulator (55, Fig. 1) when an internal pressure (by pressure sensor 56, Fig. 1; [0055]) of the fuel cell stack reaches a predetermined first pressure (predetermined pressure, see [0055]);
a third process of (S230, Fig. 4) outputting a signal indicating (predetermined display device, [0056]) occurrence of leakage (occurrence of leakage, [0056]) when the internal pressure (by pressure sensor 56, Fig. 1; [0055]) after a predetermined period (predetermined time period, [0055]) is lower than a predetermined second pressure (specified pressure level, [0055]) (note: S220 and S230 are in restart process, a restart process performs after the system stop process when the fuel cell is stopped, therefore a restart process is considered as activating the fuel cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel cell system taught by Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki by adding the pressure sensor and the predetermined display device taught by Shiokawa et al. and placing the pressure sensor on the cathode gas supply pipe taught by Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki to perform a leakage detection process (see Shiokawa [0055]) to detect any oxygen leakage.
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. teaches further comprising a first pressure sensor (280a, Yamamori Fig. 1) provided in the oxygen pipe (210, Yamamori Fig. 1) on a downstream side of the oxygen stop valve (260, Yamamori Fig. 1) and configured to measure (detects the pressure of the gas in the supply inlet of the cathode of 100, see Yamamori [0022]) the cathode internal pressure (P1, Yamamori Fig. 1), wherein the controller (720, Yamamori Fig. 1) is configured to acquire the measured cathode internal pressure from the first pressure sensor (see Yamamori [0036]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. teaches the first process (S110, Yamamori Fig. 2), the second process (Yamamori’s S120, Yamamori Fig. 2 modified with Shiokawa’s S220, Shiokawa Fig. 4), and the third process (S230, Shiokawa Fig. 4) are performed every time the fuel cell stack is activated or stopped (Yamamori’s S110 and S120 are performed at the time of stopping the fuel cell system (see Yamamori [0032]), when the stop instruction is turned ON (step S110: YES), S110 and S120 operate, therefore it’s every time (see Yamamori [0034]); Shiokawa’s S220 and S230 perform every time during the leakage detection process S220, (see Shiokawa [0055]); note: “the fuel cell stack is activated” has been interpreted as “the fuel cell stack has been restarted/reactivated”, in order to successfully restart the fuel cell, S200 and S210 have to be “NO” and S220 and S230 have to perform, see Shiokawa Fig. 4).
Claims 2-3 are rejected over Yamamori et al. (US 20190148747 A1) in view of Hiroki et al. (JP2021034132A, provided in the IDS dated 5/17/2023) in view of Shiokawa et al. (US 20160380294 A1), further in view of Kajiwara (US 20100015482 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. teaches further comprising:
an oxygen tank valve (250, Yamamori Fig. 1) attached to the oxygen pipe between the oxygen stop valve (260, Yamamori Fig. 1) and the oxygen tank (150, Hiroki Fig. 1); and
an exhaust oxygen valve (290, Yamamori Fig. 1) configured to stop discharge of gas from a cathode gas outlet of the fuel cell stack (290 shuts off the cathode off-gas from 100, Yamamori [0023]),
Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. does not teach wherein the controller is configured to, when stopping the fuel cell stack, before execution of the first process, the second process, and the third process, open the oxygen tank valve, the oxygen stop valve, the oxygen regulator, and the exhaust oxygen valve so as to discharge water remaining in the cathode from the fuel cell stack, and close the oxygen stop valve and the exhaust oxygen valve and, when an internal pressure of the oxygen pipe on an upstream side of the oxygen stop valve reaches an upper limit cathode pressure higher than the predetermined first cathode pressure, close the oxygen tank valve.
Shiokawa et al. teaches wherein the controller (20, Fig. 1) is configured to, when stopping the fuel cell stack (ordinary stop process S100, Fig. 2, 3), before (see [0052]) execution the second process (S220, Fig. 4), and the third process (S230, Fig. 4), open (20 opens 32, 34 and 43 in S103, see [0040]) the oxygen stop valve (34, Fig. 1), the oxygen regulator (32, Fig. 1), and the exhaust oxygen valve (43, Fig. 1) so as to discharge water remaining in the cathode from the fuel cell stack (cathode drainage process S103, Fig. 3, [0040]), and close (20 closes 32 and 43 in cathode sealing process S102, see [0044]; 34 closed when 32 not supplying air, see [0025]) the oxygen stop valve (34, Fig. 1) and the exhaust oxygen valve (43, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the controller taught by Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. to perform the cathode drainage process followed by the cathode sealing process as taught by Shiokawa et al., before the first, the second process and the third process as taught by Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. to suppress water in the fuel cell system from being frozen after a stop of the system and to suppress invasion of the air into the fuel cell and thereby suppress deterioration of the catalyst in the fuel cell (see Shiokawa [0039], [0044]).
Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. does not teach open the oxygen tank valve, when an internal pressure of the oxygen pipe on an upstream side of the oxygen stop valve reaches an upper limit cathode pressure higher than the predetermined first cathode pressure, close the oxygen tank valve.
Kajiwara teaches wherein the controller (50, Fig. 1) is configured to, when stopping the fuel cell stack (pressure control processing, Fig. 4), open the tank valve (ST13: open valve SV1, Fig. 4; [0062]), when an internal pressure of the pipe on an upstream side (pressure P detected by pressure sensor p2, Fig. 1; [0061]) of the stop valve (SV2, Fig. 1) reaches an upper limit pressure (P2, Fig. 4) higher than (P2 > P1, Fig. 5A) the predetermined first pressure (P1, Fig. 4), close the tank valve (ST15: close valve SV1 when P reaches P2 (P < P2 is NO in ST14), see Fig. 4, [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify fuel cell system and the controller taught by Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. by adding the pressure sensor taught by Kajiwara on the cathode gas supply pipe and the upstream side of the supply-side on-off valve taught by Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al., configuring the controller to execute the pressure control processing as taught by Kajiwara to secure the pressure of the pipe (see Kajiwara [0062]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. in view of Kajiwara teaches further comprising an exhaust oxygen pipe (220, Yamamori Fig. 1) connected to the cathode gas outlet (outlet of the cathode, Yamamori [0023]), wherein the exhaust oxygen valve (290, Yamamori Fig. 1) is provided in the exhaust oxygen pipe (220, Yamamori Fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected over Yamamori et al. (US 20190148747 A1) in view of Hiroki et al. (JP2021034132A, provided in the IDS dated 5/17/2023) in view of Shiokawa et al. (US 20160380294 A1), further in view of Yoshida (US 20090239105 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. teaches wherein the controller is configured to, when activating or stopping the fuel cell stack, output the signal indicating the occurrence of the leakage in a case where the cathode internal pressure after the predetermined period is lower than the predetermined second cathode pressure (this part of claim 4 is the same process as a third process in claim 1, citations and mappings see rejection of claim 1 above).
Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. does not teach an amount of decrease in an internal pressure of the oxygen pipe on an upstream side of the oxygen stop valve during the predetermined period is larger than a permissible decrease amount.
Yoshida teaches an amount of decrease (ΔP6, S1014, Fig. 32) in an internal pressure (measured by pressure sensor P6, Fig. 1) of the pipe on an upstream side of the stop valve (H9, Fig. 1) during the predetermined period (t4, Fig. 32, [0122]) is larger than (ΔP6 ≥ Pj15, (S1014: YES), Fig. 32) a permissible decrease amount (Pj15, Fig. 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel cell system and the controller taught by Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. by adding the pressure sensor taught by Yoshida on the upstream side of the supply-side on-off valve taught by Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al., configuring the controller to perform the gas leakage judgment taught by Yoshida to determine if the gas leakage has been generated in the high pressure section (see Yoshida [0123]).
Claim 6 is rejected over Yamamori et al. (US 20190148747 A1) in view of Hiroki et al. (JP2021034132A, provided in the IDS dated 5/17/2023) in view of Shiokawa et al. (US 20160380294 A1) in view of Kajiwara (US 20100015482 A1), further in view of Kinomoto (JP 2010257859 A, see machine translate for citation).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. in view of Kajiwara does not teach further comprising a second pressure sensor provided in the oxygen pipe on the upstream side of the oxygen stop valve and configured to measure the internal pressure of the oxygen pipe on the upstream side of the oxygen stop valve, wherein the controller is configured to acquire the measured internal pressure from the second pressure sensor.
Kinomoto teaches further comprising a second pressure sensor (34, Fig. 1) provided in the oxygen pipe (20, Fig. 1) on the upstream side (34 is upstream side of 30, Fig. 1) of the oxygen stop valve (30, Fig. 1) and configured to measure the internal pressure (P1, Fig. 1) of the oxygen pipe on the upstream side of the oxygen stop valve (see [0038]), wherein the controller (70, Fig. 1) is configured to acquire the measured internal pressure from the second pressure sensor ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel cell system and the controller taught by Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. in view of Kajiwara by adding the pressure sensor taught by Kinomoto in the oxygen pipe on the upstream side of the oxygen stop valve taught by Yamamori et al. in view of Hiroki et al. in view of Shiokawa et al. in view of Kajiwara, configuring the controller to acquire the pressure data detected by the pressure sensor taught by Kinomoto to control the pressure of the oxidizing gas (see Kinomoto [0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the non-statutory double patenting, the Examiner withdrawn the double patenting rejection of claim 4 as of 6/17/2026, because the amendment changed the scope of claim 4, which is not supported by claim 10 of the copending application No. 18/318,795.
Regarding amended claim 1, applicant states the advantages and benefits of using an oxygen regulator and an oxygen stop valve rather than an injector, which advantageously avoids the noise when closing an injector needle frequently (discussed in [0005] and [0006] of the specification filed on 5/17/2023).
The Examiner points out that the advantages and benefits of avoiding an injector are not recited in the amended claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding Shiokawa, applicant states Shiokawa does not teach the second and the third process of claim 1. Applicant further states that the amendment that an injector is omitted from the oxygen pipe distinguishes Shiokawa because Shiokawa uses an injector and accordingly employs a different oxygen supply system than the instant application. Additionally, applicant states that the leakage detection of Shiokawa is not performed in the ordinary stop process of Shiokawa. Rather, it is only performed during a restart process.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Shiokawa teaches the second and the third process of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). In addition, the Examiner is not relied on Shiokawa but relied on Yamamori in view of Hiroki for the structure of the oxygen pipe where an injector is omitted from the oxygen pipe (see rejection of claim 1 above).
The Examiner also respectfully disagree with the applicant statement that Shiokawa uses an injector (see 55 in Fig. 1 and [0027] of Shiokawa) and employs a different oxygen supply system. The instant application describes the structure of a typical injector as a needle that closes a gas ejection port, and a solenoid that moves the needle (see [0004] of the specification filed on 5/17/2023). By contrast, the injector 55 of Shiokawa is an electromagnetic on-off valve (see Shiokawa Fig. 1 and [0029]), which has analogous valve structure as oxygen stop valve 23 and oxygen regulator 24 of embodiments of the present application (see [0032] of the specification filed on 5/17/2023). Therefore, the electromagnetic valve used in Shiokawa would not be interpreted as an injector. Furthermore, the Examiner points out that the injector 55 of Shiokawa sits in the hydrogen supply pipe not in the oxygen pipe (see Shiokawa Fig. 1). Therefore, the electromagnetic valve (not an injector) of Shiokawa which is on the hydrogen supply pipe would not employ a different oxygen supply system in light of “an injector is omitted from the oxygen pipe”.
Further, the Examiner agrees that the leakage detection process of Shiokawa is not performed in the ordinary stop process of Shiokawa. However, the leakage detection process of Shiokawa is indeed performed during a restart process (see [0052] and Fig. 4 of Shiokawa). A restart process is considered as a type of activating of the fuel cell stack. Therefore, the restart process of Shiokawa, which is a type of activating of the fuel cell stack reads on the scope of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-4 and claim 6, they are considered but moot because it is the Examiner’s position that Yamamori in view of Hiroki in view of Shiokawa teaches limitations of amended claim 1 (see rejection above).
Therefore, for the aforementioned reason a new rejection of the claims in view of the amendments is made (see rejection above).
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 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 NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights