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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from the Japanese application no. JP2023109130 filed on 07/03/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (“IDS”) filed on 07/01/2024 and 02/10/2025 have been reviewed and the listed references have been considered.
Drawings
The 9-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
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.
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 limitations are: “contour extractor” in claim 1, “determination unit”, “heel estimation unit in claims 1-8; “toe estimation unit” in claims 9-13 and “foot length calculation unit” in claims 14-18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, these are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structures described in the applicant’s drawings: algorithms (flow charts) depicted in Fig.2, Fig. 3 and applicant’s specification: ¶0025: “Each of the functional blocks shown in the diagrams, including Fig. 2, can be implemented by an element such as a processor” as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
6. Applicant’s claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the claim language contains intended use which does not have patentable weight. Specifically, claim 13 recites “a toe estimation unit to estimate”, which is interpreted as intended use and not seen as actual functions of the claimed device. Applicant may amend the claims to recite “a toe estimation unit configured to estimate” to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heo (US 2023/0385894 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Heo teaches, A heel position estimation device, comprising: (Heo, ¶0008: “foot size measurement information using smart device”; and ¶0102: “determining… the calcaneal bisection line from the foot image. The calcaneus is the heel bone”) a contour extractor configured to extract, (Heo, ¶0119: “extract only the outline area of the foot in the image through regression analysis”) from a one-foot image of a measurement subject, (Heo, ¶0098: “a foot analysis processor 220 for analyzing the customer's foot image”) a contour shape (Heo, ¶0121: “the outline and its coordinates are extracted from the boundary”) of a foot part that includes at least part of a heel portion; (Heo, ¶0137: “the inclination angle of the ankle, the inclination angle of the lower leg bisection line, and the ratio of left and right areas of the heel may be obtained”) a determination unit configured to determine a type of the contour shape; (Heo, ¶0136: “a foot type determination unit 224 that derives the foot type”) and a heel estimation unit configured to estimate a heel point position in the contour shape, (Heo, ¶0133: “coordinate values of the inner ankle and the outer ankle may be set as the center point of the ankle”) based on the type of the contour shape determined. (Heo, ¶0142: “In the A-type foot, since the little toe is lifted higher than the big toe or the big toe is pressed down, the first calcaneal head accommodation portion 12 in the forefoot (FF) of the insole may be formed lower”).
Regarding claim 2, Heo teaches, The heel position estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit is configured to (Heo, ¶0136: “a foot type determination unit 224 that derives the foot type”) determine whether the contour shape is a first type having a maximum point when a heel side in a foot length direction of the one-foot image (Heo, ¶0047: “AI model structure of output values (foot type) according to input values (inner ankle, outer ankle, angle of lower leg bisection line, left and right area data of the heel, and foot image) in a model structure”) is defined as a positive direction, (Heo, ¶0059: “the D1-axis, the D2-axis, and the D3-axis may be perpendicular to one another, or may represent different directions that are not perpendicular to one another”) and when the contour shape is determined to be the first type, the heel estimation unit is configured to estimate a maximum point to be the heel point position. (Heo, ¶0029: “the rearfoot of the insole applied to the A-type may be formed higher on the lateral side than on the medial side by an inclination angle of 5 to 15 degrees, in the forefoot, the second, third, fourth, and fifth calcaneal head receiving portions may be formed higher than the first calcaneal head receiving portion”; Heo correlates a foot type with detected foot characteristics).
Regarding claim 3, Heo teaches, The heel position estimation device according to claim 2, wherein, when the determination unit has determined the contour shape to be not the first type, the determination unit is configured to (Heo, ¶0036: “reading whether the foot type is suitable, and re-determining the foot type if it is determined to be unsuitable”) determine whether the contour shape is a second type in which a magnitude of an inclination of the contour shape with respect to the foot length direction or a degree of a change in the inclination satisfies a predetermined condition, (Heo, ¶0143: “The B-type is an eversion type foot in which the instep is low, the arch of the foot is low, and the foot leans inward, and it corresponds to a clinically mild foot”) and when the contour shape is determined to be the second type, the heel estimation unit is configured to estimate a position in the contour shape that satisfies the predetermined condition to be the heel point position. (Heo, ¶0030: “the rearfoot of the insole applied to the B-type is formed higher on medial side than on the lateral side with a gentle inclination to prevent the foot from leaning inward… the big toe portion may extend from the first calcaneal head (mortons extension) and is formed slightly high, and the lateral calcaneus cuboid arch portion may be formed of a level 1 low support portion”; Heo correlates a different foot type with detected different foot characteristics).
Regarding claim 4, Heo teaches, The heel position estimation device according to claim 3, wherein, when the inclination of the contour shape with respect to the foot length direction changes, along the contour shape from a plantar side toward the heel side in the foot length direction, (Heo, ¶0127: “coordinate deviation of the extracted outline, ankle detection, region of interest (ROI) setting, foot inclination”) from a first inclination range to a second inclination range, which is greater than the first inclination range (Heo, ¶0127: “connecting the coordinate values of the distal end of the inner ankle and the coordinate values of the outline near the inside of the sole of the foot are set, and then the inclination angle with the highest angle among them may be used”) by a predetermined amount of inclination, (Heo, ¶0029: “the A-type may be formed higher on the lateral side than on the medial side by an inclination angle of 5 to 15 degrees”) the determination unit is configured to determine the contour shape to be the second type, (Heo, ¶0127: “the inclination angle with the highest angle among them may be used as the input data”) and when the contour shape is determined to be the second type, (Heo, ¶0136: “a foot type determination unit 224 that derives the foot type using a series of neural networks from input data”) the heel estimation unit is configured to estimate a position in the contour shape at which the inclination changes from the first inclination range to the second inclination range, (Heo, ¶0019: “an inclination angle of the inner ankle, an inclination angle of the outer ankle, an inclination angle of the lower leg bisection line, and left and right area data of the heel divided to left and right by the lower leg bisection line may be learned using a deep neural network”) to be the heel point position. (Heo, ¶0137: “the ratio of left and right areas of the heel may be obtained”).
Regarding claim 5, Heo teaches, The heel position estimation device according to claim 3, wherein, when the contour shape includes a position at which the magnitude of the inclination with respect to the foot length direction is a predetermined threshold or greater, (Heo, ¶0029: “the second, third, fourth, and fifth calcaneal head receiving portions may be formed higher than the first calcaneal head receiving portion”) the determination unit is configured to (Heo, ¶0136: “a foot type determination unit 224 that derives the foot type using a series of neural networks from input data”) determine the contour shape to be the second type, and when the contour shape is determined to be the second type, (Heo, ¶0143: “The B-type is an eversion type foot in which the instep is low, the arch of the foot is low, and the foot leans inward, and it corresponds to a clinically mild foot”) the heel estimation unit is configured to estimate a position in the contour shape at which the magnitude of the inclination is greater than or equal to the threshold and that is located on a most plantar side, (Heo, ¶0030: “the rearfoot of the insole applied to the B-type is formed higher on medial side than on the lateral side with a gentle inclination to prevent the foot from leaning inward (eversion), the midfoot may be formed of a plantar fascia groove”) to be the heel point position. (Heo, ¶0137: “the ratio of left and right areas of the heel may be obtained”).
Regarding claim 6, Heo teaches, The heel position estimation device according to claim 3, wherein, when the determination unit has determined the contour shape to be not the first type or the second type, the determination unit is configured to determine (Heo, ¶0036: “reading whether the foot type is suitable, and re-determining the foot type if it is determined to be unsuitable”) the contour shape to be a third type, and when the contour shape is determined to be the third type, (Heo, ¶0144: “The C-type corresponds to a foot type in which the instep is low and the arch of the foot is low, but the foot is generally not biased in any direction”) the heel estimation unit is configured to estimate a position in the contour shape located on a most heel side in the foot length direction (Heo, ¶0127: “a series of virtual lines connecting the coordinate values of the distal end of the outer ankle and the coordinate values of the outline near the outside of the sole of the foot are set”) to be the heel point position. (Heo, ¶0137: “the ratio of left and right areas of the heel may be obtained”).
Regarding claim 7, Heo teaches, The heel position estimation device according to claim 4, wherein, when the determination unit has determined the contour shape to be not the first type or the second type, the determination unit is configured to determine (Heo, ¶0036: “reading whether the foot type is suitable, and re-determining the foot type if it is determined to be unsuitable”) the contour shape to be a third type, and when the contour shape is determined to be the third type, (Heo, ¶0144: “The C-type corresponds to a foot type in which the instep is low and the arch of the foot is low, but the foot is generally not biased in any direction”) the heel estimation unit is configured to estimate a position in the contour shape located on a most heel side in the foot length direction (Heo, ¶0127: “a series of virtual lines connecting the coordinate values of the distal end of the outer ankle and the coordinate values of the outline near the outside of the sole of the foot are set”) to be the heel point position. (Heo, ¶0137: “the ratio of left and right areas of the heel may be obtained”).
Regarding claim 8, Heo teaches, The heel position estimation device according to claim 5, wherein, when the determination unit has determined (Heo, ¶0036: “reading whether the foot type is suitable, and re-determining the foot type if it is determined to be unsuitable”) the contour shape to be a third type, and when the contour shape is determined to be the third type, (Heo, ¶0144: “The C-type corresponds to a foot type in which the instep is low and the arch of the foot is low, but the foot is generally not biased in any direction”) the heel estimation unit is configured to estimate a position in the contour shape located on a most heel side in the foot length direction (Heo, ¶0127: “a series of virtual lines connecting the coordinate values of the distal end of the outer ankle and the coordinate values of the outline near the outside of the sole of the foot are set”) to be the heel point position. (Heo, ¶0137: “the ratio of left and right areas of the heel may be obtained”).
Regarding claim 19, Heo teaches, A heel position estimation (Heo, ¶0008: “foot size measurement information using smart device”; and ¶0102: “determining… the calcaneal bisection line from the foot image. The calcaneus is the heel bone”) method, comprising: extracting, (Heo, ¶0121: “The method for extracting the outline”) from a one-foot image (Heo, ¶0119: “extract only the outline area of the foot in the image through regression analysis”) of a measurement subject, (Heo, ¶0098: “analyzing the customer's foot image”) a contour shape (Heo, ¶0121: “the outline and its coordinates are extracted from the boundary”) of a foot part that includes at least part of a heel portion; (Heo, ¶0137: “the inclination angle of the ankle, the inclination angle of the lower leg bisection line, and the ratio of left and right areas of the heel may be obtained”) determining the type of the contour shape; (Heo, ¶0136: “a foot type determination unit 224 that derives the foot type”) and estimating a heel point position in the contour shape, (Heo, ¶0133: “coordinate values of the inner ankle and the outer ankle may be set as the center point of the ankle”) based on the type of the contour shape determined. (Heo, ¶0142: “In the A-type foot, since the little toe is lifted higher than the big toe or the big toe is pressed down, the first calcaneal head accommodation portion 12 in the forefoot (FF) of the insole may be formed lower”).
Regarding claim 20, Heo teaches, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Heo, ¶0086: “customer terminal 100 may be any device capable of display, data storage, and communication, such as a smartphone, tablet, or PC computer”) storing a program causing a computer to implement: (Heo, ¶0063: “microprocessors or other similar hardware, they may be programmed and controlled using software (e.g., microcode) to perform various functions”) extracting, from a one-foot image (Heo, ¶0119: “extract only the outline area of the foot in the image through regression analysis”) of a measurement subject, (Heo, ¶0098: “analyzing the customer's foot image”) a contour shape (Heo, ¶0121: “the outline and its coordinates are extracted from the boundary”) of a foot part that includes at least part of a heel portion; (Heo, ¶0137: “the inclination angle of the ankle, the inclination angle of the lower leg bisection line, and the ratio of left and right areas of the heel may be obtained”) determining the type of the contour shape; (Heo, ¶0136: “a foot type determination unit 224 that derives the foot type”) and estimating a heel point position in the contour shape, (Heo, ¶0133: “coordinate values of the inner ankle and the outer ankle may be set as the center point of the ankle”) based on the type of the contour shape determined. (Heo, ¶0142: “In the A-type foot, since the little toe is lifted higher than the big toe or the big toe is pressed down, the first calcaneal head accommodation portion 12 in the forefoot (FF) of the insole may be formed lower”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (US 2023/0385894 A1) in view of Maezawa (US 20210345733 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Heo teaches, The heel position estimation device according to claim 1, further comprising: a toe estimation unit configured to estimate a toe position from the one-foot image; (Heo, ¶0032: “a big toe portion may be formed slightly high by extending from the first calcaneal head (mortons extension”). However, Heo does not explicitly teach, a foot length calculation unit configured to calculate a foot length based on the toe position estimated and the heel point position estimated.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Maezawa teaches, a foot length calculation unit configured to calculate (Maezawa, ¶0148: “control unit 21 can further comprise measuring means”) a foot length based on the toe position estimated and the heel point position estimated. (Maezawa, ¶0149: “foot length can be measured by measuring the length between the heel and the toe in a two-dimensional cross-section passing through the heel and the toe”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heo using the teachings of Maezawa to introduce measuring heel to toe. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of computing a foot size from heel to toe from a foot image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Heo and Maezawa to obtain the invention in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Heo and Maezawa references presented in the rejection of claim 9, apply to claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 10 is met by Heo and Maezawa.
Regarding claim 11, the proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Heo and Maezawa references presented in the rejection of claim 9, apply to claim 11 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 11 is met by Heo and Maezawa.
Regarding claim 12, the proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Heo and Maezawa references presented in the rejection of claim 9, apply to claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 12 is met by Heo and Maezawa.
Regarding claim 13, the proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Heo and Maezawa references presented in the rejection of claim 9, apply to claim 13 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 13 is met by Heo and Maezawa.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (US 2023/0385894 A1) in view of Maezawa (US 20210345733 A1) and in further view of Ajima (US 2017/0332960 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Heo in view of Maezawa teaches, The heel position estimation device according to claim 9. Although Heo teaches the use of regression models- Heo, ¶0119: “extract only the outline area of the foot in the image through regression analysis”), the combination of Heo and Maezawa does not explicitly teach, a foot length correction unit configured to correct the foot length calculated by the foot length calculation unit, based on a multiple regression model using a size of a reference object in the one-foot image and an angle of a predetermined portion of the reference object, a parameter based on information on an actual size of the reference object and information on an actual angle of the predetermined portion of the reference object, and a coefficient based on the type of the contour shape.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Kagami teaches, a foot length correction unit (Kagami, ¶0045: “foot shape data creating unit 106”) configured to correct the foot length calculated by the foot length calculation unit, (Kagami, ¶0050: “foot shape data creating unit 106 creates a foot shape data based on the corrected foot size”) based on a multiple regression model (Kagami, ¶0046: “foot shape data creating unit 106 holds a learned model obtained by performing supervised learning on a data set”) using a size of a reference object (Kagami, ¶0048: “calculates the image capturing distance based on the size of the reference marker”) in the one-foot image and an angle of a predetermined portion of the reference object, (Kagami, ¶0050: “based on the positions of the distortion correction markers 118, and corrects the size of a foot of which an image has been captured”) a parameter based on information on an actual size of the reference object (Kagami, ¶0048: “the size of the reference marker 114 is determined in advance”) and information on an actual angle of the predetermined portion of the reference object, (Kagami, ¶0050: “based on the positions of the distortion correction markers 118, and corrects the size of a foot of which an image has been captured”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heo in view of Maezawa using the teachings of Kagami to introduce using an object of known size. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of computing a foot length based on the size of the known object in the image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Heo and Maezawa to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 14. However, the combination of Heo and Maezawa does not explicitly teach, a coefficient based on the type of the contour shape.
In another analogous field of endeavor, Ajima teaches, a coefficient based on the type of the contour shape. (Ajima, ¶0179: “coefficients representing the shape characteristics of the contour”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heo in view of Maezawa using the teachings of Ajima to introduce coefficient based on contour shape. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of optimizing the computation based on different contour shapes for more accurate computation results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Heo, Maezawa to obtain the invention in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Heo, Maezawa and Ajima references presented in the rejection of claim 14, apply to claim 15 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 15 is met by Heo, Maezawa and Ajima.
Regarding claim 16, the proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Heo, Maezawa and Ajima references presented in the rejection of claim 14, apply to claim 16 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 16 is met by Heo, Maezawa and Ajima.
Regarding claim 17, the proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Heo, Maezawa and Ajima references presented in the rejection of claim 14, apply to claim 17 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 17 is met by Heo, Maezawa and Ajima.
Regarding claim 18, the proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Heo, Maezawa and Ajima references presented in the rejection of claim 14, apply to claim 18 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 18 is met by Heo, Maezawa and Ajima.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 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, Saini Amandeep can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights