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 .
Second Non-Final Rejection
The previous Office Action omitted the structural feature of:
“an amplitude detection unit configured to detect an amplitude of vibration of the vibration transmission member”.
The resulting language changed the nature of the rejection in dependent claim 5. Thus, this Office Action is a second non-final rejection.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-6, drawn to a cell detachment device, classified in USPC 435/305.1 or CPC C12M27/16.
II. Claims 8-14, drawn to a cell detachment method, classified in USPC 435/305.1 or CPC C12N1/02. These claims are currently withdrawn (see previous restriction).
III. Claim 15, drawn to a cell detachment device, classified in USPC 435/305.1 or CPC C12M27/16.
Newly submitted claim 15 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I and III are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed:
Regarding Invention I (claims 1-6), the invention contains a sensor electrode as the amplitude voltage output unit, comprising a piezoelectric element and being placed in the space formed by the cut-out portion.
Regarding Invention III (claim 15), the invention contains a glass plate configured to vibrate by receiving vibration of the vibration member.
Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Additionally:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or,
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should Applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
“a vibration member” in claims 1 and 2
“a vibration transmission member” in claim 1, 3, and 5-6
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-3 and 5-6 are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification as filed shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structures, materials, or acts described in the specification as filed for the following 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) limitations:
“a vibration member” in claims 1 and 2 – “In the first embodiment, the vibration member 103 includes, among others, an ultrasonic transducer built from a piezoelectric element, and is formed as a ring-shaped member a part of which is cut out for a space to place the amplitude voltage output unit 105 therein.” (instant specification, paragraph [0037])
“a vibration transmission member” in claim 1, 3, and 5-6 – “A member made from a material close in vibration transmissibility to a material from which the substrate is made is preferred for the vibration transmission member 104 in order to transmit vibration efficiently to the substrate. For example, a glass plate is usable as the vibration transmission member 104.” (instant specification, paragraph [0036])
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.
The following claim limitations are considered controller limitations and do not incur 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
“a drive voltage output unit” in claims 1 and 2
“an amplitude detection unit” in claims 1 and 4-5
“a drive voltage control unit” in claims 1, 3, and 6
“a maximum amplitude storage unit” in claim 3
“an amplitude information generation unit” in claim 5
“an amplitude acquisition command unit” in claim 5
“an amplitude acquisition unit” in claim 5
“a correction reference information holding unit” in claim 6
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 | 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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kudo (US 20120025743) (previously cited) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kudo (US 20120025743) (previously cited) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kudo (US 20120025743) (previously cited) in view of Horner (US 20230235264) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Kudo discloses:
A device comprising:
a vibration member (paragraph [0026] “piezoelectric element 5”) configured to be vibrated by a drive voltage (paragraph [0026] “applies a drive signal to the vibration wave driven apparatus”) at an amplitude depending on an output value of the drive voltage (paragraphs [0026] and [0047] and Fig. 6, element 24 “drive signal” and Fig. 9a’s signal emanating from “drive signal generation unit”), the vibration member including an ultrasonic transducer built from a piezoelectric element (Fig. 1B, paragraph [0029] “The piezoelectric element 5”) and having a cut-out portion forming a space (Fig. 1B, center portion “S1”) configured to receive an amplitude voltage output unit (paragraph [0029], “vibration-amplitude detection electrode S1 … outputs a voltage V3”);
a vibration transmission member (paragraph [0026] “elastic member 4”) configured to vibrate by receiving vibration of the vibration member (Fig. 1B, paragraph [0029] “The piezoelectric element 5), and transmit the vibration of the vibration member (Fig. 1B, paragraph [0029] “The piezoelectric element 5) to a substrate (paragraph [0026], Fig. 12A, element 7 “driving member 7”), the vibration transmission member (paragraph [0026] “elastic member 4”) being provided in contact with the vibration member (Fig. 1B, paragraph [0029] “The piezoelectric element 5) and the amplitude voltage output unit (paragraph [0029], “vibration-amplitude detection electrode S1 … outputs a voltage V3”);
a sensor electrode (paragraph [0029], “vibration-amplitude detection electrode S1 … outputs a voltage V3”) as the amplitude voltage output unit, comprising a piezoelectric element (Fig. 1B, paragraph [0029] “The piezoelectric element 5”) and being placed in the space formed by the cut-out portion (Fig. 1B, center portion “S1”);
a drive voltage output unit configured to output the drive voltage (paragraph [0056] “drive signal generation unit 21”);
an amplitude detection unit configured to detect an amplitude of vibration (paragraph [0029] “vibration-member-side vibration detection circuit 19 as shown in Fig. 1A”) of the vibration transmission member (paragraph [0026] “elastic member 4”) based on an amplitude voltage output (paragraph [0029] signal from “an output terminal of the vibration-member-side vibration detection electrode S1”) from the amplitude voltage output unit (Fig. 1B, paragraph [0029] “The piezoelectric element 5”); and
a drive voltage control unit (paragraph [0033] “a microcomputer or a logic circuit” and paragraph [0026] “control apparatus”) configured to control the output value of the drive voltage (paragraph [0026], output from the “drive signal generation unit 21”), based on the amplitude detected by the amplitude detection unit (paragraph [0029] “vibration-member-side vibration detection circuit 19 as shown in Fig. 1A”).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kudo, Fig. 1A
PNG
media_image2.png
436
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kudo, Fig. 12A
Regarding the preamble limitation “A cell detachment device configured to detach a cell on a substrate from the substrate by applying vibration, the cell detachment device comprising”, while Kudo does not teach that their invention is for the intended purpose as stated in the claimed preamble, a preamble merely indicates the intended use of the apparatus and does not add structural limitations to the claims. MPEP § 2111.02(II). Because the apparatus taught by Kudo teaches all the structural limitations claimed, it would be capable of being used as claimed in the preamble. Applicant is also reminded that the intended use of or manner of operating a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II).
Nevertheless, if it is deemed that the limitation “the substrate” is not anticipated as above, Horner discloses the substrate, wherein there is detaching a cell on a substrate (claim 23) from the substrate by applying vibration (claim 23).
In the analogous art of apparatuses and methods to culture cells, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Kudo with the substrate of Horner in order to recover cells from growing on a surface, such as that of a flask or a cell culture container to release cells from microcavity wells (Horner, claim 23) for the purpose of generating spheroids or organoids (Horner, paragraph [0016]).
PNG
media_image3.png
550
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Horner, Fig. 5
If it is deemed that the limitation “the vibration member … having a cut-out portion forming a space” is not fulfilled by Kudo above, the shape of the parts is still obvious. In addition, the claim limitation is obvious, as the configuration of the claimed shape is a matter of choice, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of the vibration member of Kudo with that with a cut-out portion forming a space as claimed or in the diagram of Kudo Fig. 1B, element S1 (shown below) in order to have a voltage sensor to detect a voltage that describes the elliptic motion of the device and vibration applied to the piezoelectric element of the vibration member (Kudo, paragraphs [0027]-[0029]).
PNG
media_image4.png
252
303
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kudo, Fig. 1B
Regarding claim 6, Kudo discloses wherein the drive voltage control unit (paragraph [0033] “a microcomputer or a logic circuit” and paragraph [0026] “control apparatus”) includes a correction reference information holding unit (paragraph [0036] “stored in a memory (not shown) in advance”) configured to hold correction reference information acquired in advance with respect to a relationship between the drive voltage and the amplitude of the vibration of the vibration transmission member that is caused by the drive voltage (paragraphs [0029] and [0055] “detecting a phase difference between a signal output by a driving-member-side vibration detection circuit 18 and the signal applied by the drive signal generation unit 21”), and the drive voltage control unit is configured to control the output value of the drive voltage with use of the correction reference information (paragraphs [0034]-[0037]; Fig. 2, signal incorporates “delay time P”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo (US 20120025743) (previously cited) as applied to 1 above in view of Lahoud (CA 3174154) (previously cited); or, alternatively, Kudo in view of Horner (US 20230235264) (previously cited) as applied to 1 above and further in view of Lahoud (CA 3174154) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Kudo discloses wherein the drive voltage is an alternating voltage (paragraph [0027]), and a natural vibration frequency of the vibration member (Fig. 6 “resonant frequency” is from “drive signal 24”).
Kudo does not disclose that the drive voltage output unit is configured to output the drive voltage with a frequency of the drive voltage swept over a range that includes a natural vibration frequency of the vibration member.
Lahoud discloses that the drive voltage output unit is configured to output the drive voltage with a frequency of the drive voltage swept over a range (pg. 19, lines 24-30) that includes a natural vibration frequency of the vibration member (Fig. 7; pg. 18, line 31 to pg. 19, line 19 “resonance point of the transducer”).
In the analogous art of cell lysis systems and methods via sonication, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drive voltage output unit of Kudo with the drive voltage being swept over a range to include a natural vibration frequency of the vibration member of Lahoud in order to have the most optimal and efficient usage of the transducer (Lahoud, pg. 17, lines 14-25).
Regarding claim 3, Kudo discloses the drive voltage control unit (paragraph [0033] “a microcomputer or a logic circuit” and paragraph [0026] “control apparatus”), storing a maximum value of the amplitude (paragraph [0028]), the vibration transmission member (paragraph [0026] “elastic member 4”), and the drive voltage control unit is configured to control the output value of the drive voltage (Figs. 5-6 and 9a; and paragraph [0026]) based on the maximum value of the amplitude (paragraph [0028]) of the vibration transmission member (paragraph [0026] “elastic member 4” via the maximum value of the amplitude sensed via Fig. 3, element 17 “position detection unit” and Fig. 3, element 18 “vibration detection circuit” of Fig. 12A, element 7 “driving member 7”, paragraph [0026]).
Kudo does not disclose that the drive voltage control unit includes a maximum amplitude storage unit configured to store a maximum value of the amplitude of the vibration transmission member per sweeping of the frequency.
Lahoud discloses a maximum amplitude storage unit (pg. 21, lines 13-14 “store a record in the memory 41”) configured to store a maximum value of the amplitude of the vibration transmission member per sweeping of the frequency (pg. 3, lines 10-12 “active power” is inherently related to “mechanical deformation” and “AC Voltage amplitude”; pg. 19, line 32 to pg. 21, line 25).
In the analogous art of cell lysis systems and methods via sonication, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drive voltage output unit of Kudo with the drive voltage being swept over a range to include a natural vibration frequency of the vibration member and store the maximum value of the amplitude of the vibration transmission member per sweeping of the frequency in the maximum amplitude storage unit of Lahoud in order to have the most optimal and efficient usage of the transducer (Lahoud, pg. 17, lines 14-25).
Regarding claim 4, Kudo discloses the amplitude detection unit (paragraph [0029] “vibration-member-side vibration detection circuit 19 as shown in Fig. 1A”).
Kudo does not disclose wherein the amplitude detection unit is configured to detect the maximum value of the amplitude per sweeping of the frequency.
Lahoud discloses wherein the amplitude detection unit is configured to detect the maximum value of the amplitude per sweeping of the frequency (pg. 16, lines 9-22; pg. 21, lines 9-10; pg. 21, lines 25-35).
In the analogous art of cell lysis systems and methods via sonication, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drive voltage output unit of Kudo with the drive voltage being swept over a range to include the amplitude detection unit of Lahoud, wherein the amplitude detection unit is configured to detect the maximum value of the amplitude per sweeping of the frequency, in order to have the most optimal and efficient usage of the transducer (Lahoud, pg. 17, lines 14-25).
Regarding claim 5, Kudo discloses wherein the amplitude detection unit (paragraph [0029] “vibration-member-side vibration detection circuit 19 as shown in Fig. 1A”) comprises:
an amplitude information generation unit (paragraph [0029], this is disclosed as part of the function of “the vibration-member-side vibration detection circuit 19”) configured to generate amplitude information formed from a rectangular waveform signal (paragraph [0029] “The vibration-member-side vibration detection circuit 19 converts an output signal from the vibration-amplitude detection electrode S1 into a binary signal using a threshold set at the central value of the output signal.”);
an amplitude acquisition command unit configured to output, based on the amplitude information, a command to acquire the amplitude of the vibration of the vibration transmission member (paragraph [0029], “an output terminal of the vibration-member-side vibration detection circuit 19” [italics added]); and
an amplitude acquisition unit (paragraph [0029] “The position detection unit 17”) configured to acquire the amplitude of the vibration of the vibration transmission member (paragraph [0026] “elastic member 4”), based on the command output from the amplitude acquisition command unit (paragraph [0029] “The position detection unit 17 calculates the relative position between the vibration member and the driving-member-side vibration detection portion 8 on the basis of the signals output from the driving-member-side vibration detection circuit 18 and the vibration-member-side vibration detection circuit 19.”).
Additional Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Takahara (US 20210054330) (newly cited) – This invention is a cell culture device that allows for ultrasonic irradiation of cells.
(JP S6011834) (machine translation) (newly cited) – This invention is a piezoelectric vibration device for detaching cells from a culture vessel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant arguments, pg. 9 of 13, the middle paragraph states in part:
Additionally, the amplitude detection unit detects an amplitude of vibration of the vibration transmission member based on an amplitude voltage output from the amplitude voltage output unit.
This part of the claims has now been addressed in this second non-final rejection. The previous Office Action omitted this structural feature, and the resulting language changed the nature of the rejection in dependent claim 5. However, these features have still been found in Kudo, see citations above, notably paragraph [0029].
Regarding pg. 11 of 13 of Applicant arguments, the cut-out portion of Kudo is found to disclose the cut-out portion of the claims; if it is deemed that this disclosure is not relevant, an obvious change in the shape of parts would still relevantly teach the cut-out portion.
Regarding pg. 12 of 13 of Applicant arguments, new claim 15 is restricted by election by original presentation and the double-distinctness standard applied to two related devices under U.S. restriction practice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN G ESPERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9807. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am - 6 pm every other Friday.
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.
/N.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights