DETAILED ACTION
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This non-final Office action addresses U.S. reissue application No. 18/941,926 (“926 Reissue Application” or “instant application”). Based upon a review of the instant application, the actual filing date is Nov. 8, 2024 (“926 Actual Filing Date”). Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this reissue application proceeding. The 926 Reissue Application contained, among other things: Reissue Application Declarations by the Inventor and a preliminary amendment.
The 926 Reissue Application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 11,496,152 (“’152 Patent”) titled “Decoding Device, Decoding Method, And Program.” The 152 Patent was filed on Feb. 1, 2021 and assigned by the Office US patent application number 17/265,171 (“171 Application”) and issued on Nov. 8, 2022 with claims 1-13 (“Originally Patented Claims”).
Because the instant reissue application was filed within two years after the ‘152 Patent was issued, broadening of claim scope is allowed. See MPEP § 1401 and 35 USC § 251.
II. OTHER PROCEEDINGS
Based on the result of litigation search related to the ‘152 Patent and after the Examiner's independent review of the ‘152 Patent itself, its prosecution history and litigation search report, the Examiner could not find any litigation and IPR related to the ‘152 Patent.
Also the Examiner could not find any reexamination proceedings related to the ‘152 Patent.
III. PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT
The 926 Reissue Application contains a preliminary amendment (“926 Preliminary Amendment”) that was filed on the 926 Actual Filing Date.
The 926 Preliminary Amendment is hereby entered. The 926 Preliminary Amendment contained, among other things, “REMARKS” (“2024 Remarks”), “AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS” (“2024 Claim Amendment”).
The 2024 Claim Amendment amended claims 1, and 12-13 and added new claims 14-23. On Jul 18, 2025, Applicant filed another preliminary amendment (“2025 Claim Amendment”) which added claims 24-25.
IV. STATUS OF CLAIMS
In light of the above:
Claims 1-25 are currently pending (“Pending Claims”).
Claims 1-25 are examined.
As a result of the instant office action:
Claims 12 and 14-25 are rejected.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are allowed.
V. PRIORITY CLAIMS
Based upon a review of the instant application and ‘152 Patent, the Examiner finds that the instant application is a reissue application of the ‘152 Patent, matured from the 171 Application, which is a national stage application of PCT/JP2019/022345 filed on Jun. 5, 2019, which also claims foreign priority to JP 2018-149514 filed on Aug. 8, 2018.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is on or after March 16, 2013, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply (to the invention or claims of the instant reissue application). Instead, the earlier ‘First to Invent’ provisions do not apply.
VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
A. Lexicographic Definitions
After careful review of the original specification and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Because the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision the Examiner concludes the Patent Owner is not their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01 IV.
B. 'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation'
For terms not lexicographically defined by Patent Owner, the Examiner hereby adopts the following interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In other words, the Examiner has provided the following interpretations simply as express notice of how she is interpreting particular terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Additionally, these interpretations are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language.1 In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Examiner points to these other “sources” to support his interpretation of the claims. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
1. Processor: "1: one that processes 2. a: (1) a computer (2) The part of a computer system that operates on data – called also a central processing unit b : a computer program (as a compiler) that puts another program into a form acceptable to the computer " Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary , 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
2. Configuration: “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to a hardware configuration or software configuration.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
3. Processing: "Manipulation of data within a computer system. Processing is the vital step between receiving data (input) and producing results (output) – the task for which computers are designed" Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary , 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
4. encode “(1) (general) To express a single character or a message in terms of a code. (2) (electronic control) To produce a unique combination of a group of output signals in response to each of a group of input signals. (3) (computers) To apply the rules of a code. See also: matrix; translate; code; decode. (4) (modeling and simulation) To represent data in symbolic Form using a code or a coded character set such that reconversion to the original form is possible.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
5. decode: “decode (1) To produce a single output signal from each combination of a group of input signals. (2) (data management) To convert data by reversing the effect of previous encoding.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
6. circuit (1) (A) The physical medium on which signals are carried across the AUI. The data and control circuits consist of an A circuit and a B circuit forming a balanced transmission system so that the signal carried on the B circuit is the inverse of the signal carried on the A circuit. (B) (data transmission) A network providing one or more closed paths. (C) An arrangement of interconnected components that has at least one input and one output terminal, and whose purpose is to pro- duce at the output terminals a signal that is a function of the signal at the input terminals. Synonyms: physical circuit; net- work. See also: expansion board; channel; telecommunication circuit. (D) An arrangement of interconnected electronic components that can perform specific functions upon application of proper voltages and signals. IEEE 1000 The Authoritative dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000.
7. Circuitry: 1: the detailed plan or arrangement of an electric circuit. 2: the components of an electric circuit. Merriam - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, Merriam-Webster Inc., 1994.
8. Filter: “ (1) (wave filter) A transducer for separating waves on the basis of their frequency. Note: A filter introduced relatively small insertion loss to waves in one or more frequency bands and relatively large insertion loss to waves of other frequencies. (2) (A) A device or program that separates data, signals, or material in accordance with specified criteria. (B) A mask. (4) (broadband local area networks) A circuit that selects or rejects one or more components of a signal related to frequency. (5) A generic term used to describe those types of equipment whose purpose is to reduce the harmonic current or voltage flowing in or being impressed upon specific parts of an electrical power system, or both. (6) A command whose operation consists of reading data from standard input or a list of input files and writing data to standard output. Typically, the function of a filter is to perform some transformation on the data stream. (7) (A) A circuit that eliminates certain portions of a signal, by frequency, voltage, or some other parameter. (B) A mathematical model which performs the same function on a sampled version of the signal. Synonym: mask.” IEEE 1000 The Authoritative dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000.
9. Unit: “(6)(A) (software) A separately testable element specified in the design of a computer software component. (B) (software) A logically separable part of a computer program. (C) (soft- ware) A software component that is not subdivided into other components. Note: The terms “module,” “component,” and “unit” are often used interchangeably or defined to be sub- elements of one another in different ways depending upon the context. The relationship of these terms is not yet standardized. See also: test unit. (7) A logically separable part of a program.
(8) A portion of a computer that constitutes the means of accomplishing some inclusive operation or function as; for ex- ample, an arithmetic unit. See also: execution unit; processing unit; logic unit; arithmetic unit; control unit; functional unit. (9) A unit is a logical component of a node that is accessed by I/O driver software. After the node is initialized and con- figured, the units normally operate independently. Note that one node could have multiple units (for example, processor, memory, and SCSI controller).” IEEE 1000 The Authoritative dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000.
C. Claims Invoking or not Invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f)
In what follows, the Examiner takes the primary position that at least one functional phrase of claims 1, 13, 16-18, and 20-24 and invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f). For support of the Examiners position the Examiner notes the appropriate 3-prong analysis. See MPEP §2181 I. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Examiner also takes the primary position that claim 12 does not invoke § 112 (f). Claims 12 and 25 are method claims and do not recite “step for.” Therefore claims 12 and 25 fails prong A of the three-prong test.
Functional Phrases
circuitry configured to decode a different tactile signal encoded for each frequency band of a plurality of frequency bands; and output the decoded tactile signal for [each] at least one of the frequency bands-- --Functional phrase #1 or FP#1, as recited in claim 1.
a non-transitory storage medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by a computer, execute processing comprising: Decoding a different tactile signal encoded for each frequency band of a plurality of frequency bands; and output the decoded tactile signal for [each] at least one of the frequency bands --Functional phrase #2 or FP#2, as recited in claim 13.
the demultiplexing unit is further configured to separate the stream data to extract a low-frequency component and a high-frequency component. --Functional phrase #3 or FP#3, as recited in claim 16.
the first bit addition unit is configured to convert the low-frequency component to 12 bits in a quantization bit length by lower bits addition --Functional phrase #4 or FP#4, as recited in claim 17.
the upsampler is configured to receive an output of the first bit addition unit and to perform an upsampling process with a sampling frequency --Functional phrase #5 or FP#5, as recited in claim 18.
the band synthesis filter is configured to receive an output of the upsampler --Functional phrase #6 or FP#6, as recited in claim 20.
the second bit addition unit is configured to convert the high-frequency component to 12 bits in a quantization bit length by upper bits addition --Functional phrase #7 or FP#7, as recited in claim 21.
the band synthesis filter is configured to receive an output of the second bit addition unit --Functional phrase #8 or FP#8, as recited in claim 22.
the band synthesis filter is configured to synthesize the low-frequency component input from the upsampler and the high-frequency --Functional phrase #9 or FP#9, as recited in claim 23.
circuitry to configured to: acquire a composite tactile signal consisting of the plurality of the respective band-specific tactile signals --Functional phrase #10 or FP#10, as recited in claim 24.
3-Prong Analysis
i. 3-Prong Analysis Prong (A):
In accordance with the MPEP, Prong (A) requires:
(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 ....
MPEP § 2181 I. — Prong (A).
As an initial matter, the Examiner finds that the above Functional Phrases do not use the phrase “means for.” The issue arising under Prong (A) then becomes whether or not the claimed “circuitry,” “medium encoded with instruction,” “unit,” or “upsampler” or “filter” is a generic placeholder for the phrase ‘means for,’ i.e., being applied as a generic means for performing the function. See MPEP 2181 I.C.
First, the Examiner has reviewed the specification and concludes that the specification does not provide a description sufficient to inform a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) that the term “circuitry,” “medium encoded with instruction,” “unit,” or “upsampler” or “filter” denotes sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. However, the Examiner finds that a PHOSITA (“person having ordinary skills in the art”) understands that an ordinary “circuitry,” “medium encoded with instruction,” “unit,” or “upsampler” or “filter” cannot perform the entire claimed function respectively. Other structural elements are needed.
Second, the Examiner has reviewed both general dictionaries and subject matter specific dictionaries for evidence to establish that the term “circuitry,” “medium encoded with instruction,” “unit,” or “upsampler” or “filter” has achieved recognition as noun denoting structure to perform the corresponding functions. Based upon a review of these dictionaries, the Examiner is unable to locate sufficient evidence that “circuitry,” “medium encoded with instruction,” “unit,” or “upsampler” or “filter” has achieved recognition as a noun denoting structure for performing the claimed function. For example, see the section of Sources for BRI above, showing that circuit commonly has enough structure to perform a general circuit function such as outputting (See MPEP § 2181.II.B). However, the Examiner finds that A PHOSITA understands that ordinary circuit or circuitry cannot perform the entire claimed function of FP#1. Other structural elements are needed.
Finally, the Examiner has reviewed the prior art of record for evidence that “circuitry,” “medium encoded with instruction,” “unit,” or “upsampler” or “filter” has an art-recognized structure to perform the claimed function. Based upon a review of the prior art now of record, the Examiner is unable to locate sufficient evidence to establish that term “circuitry,” “medium encoded with instruction,” “unit,” or “upsampler” or “filter” has an art-recognized structure to perform the claimed function respectively.
Accordingly the Examiner concludes that the phrase “circuitry,” “medium encoded with instruction,” “unit,” or “upsampler” or “filter” as set forth in the above Functional Phrases is being used as a generic term for a structure performing the function, and therefore a place holder for the phrase "means for" performing the recited function respectively. Because “circuitry,” “medium encoded with instruction,” “unit,” or “upsampler” or “filter” is merely a generic placeholder having no specific structure associated therewith, the Examiner concludes that above Functional Phrases meets invocation Prong (A).
ii. 3-Prong Analysis Prong (B):
In accordance with the MPEP prong (B) requires:
(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” ....
MPEP § 2181 I. — Prong (B).
Based upon a review of claims 1-11 and 13-23 and FP#1-FP#9, the Examiner finds that the functions associated with the Functional Phrases #1-#9 are listed below:
to decode a different tactile signal encoded for each frequency band of a plurality of frequency bands; and output the decoded tactile signal for [each] at least one of the frequency bands – Functions of Functional phrase #1 or FP#1, as recited in claim 1.
decoding a different tactile signal encoded for each frequency band of a plurality of frequency bands; and output the decoded tactile signal for [each] at least one of the frequency bands -- Functions of Functional phrase #2 or FP#2, as recited in claim 13.
to separate the stream data to extract a low-frequency component and a high-frequency component -- Functions of Functional phrase #3 or FP#3, as recited in claim 16.
to convert the low-frequency component to 12 bits in a quantization bit length by lower bits addition -- Functions of Functional phrase #4 or FP#4, as recited in claim 17.
to receive an output of the first bit addition unit and to perform an upsampling process with a sampling frequency -- Functions of Functional phrase #5 or FP#5, as recited in claim 18.
to receive an output of the upsampler -- Functions of Functional phrase #6 or FP#6, as recited in claim 20.
to convert the high-frequency component to 12 bits in a quantization bit length by upper bits addition -- Functions of Functional phrase #7 or FP#7, as recited in claim 21.
to receive an output of the second bit addition unit -- Functions of Functional phrase #8 or FP#8, as recited in claim 22.
to synthesize the low-frequency component input from the upsampler and the high-frequency -- Functions of Functional phrase #9 or FP#9, as recited in claim 23.
to acquire a composite tactile signal consisting of the plurality of the respective band-specific tactile signals --Functional phrase #10 or FP#10, as recited in claim 24.
iii. 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (C)
In accordance with the MPEP, Prong (C) requires:
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
MPEP § 2181 I — Prong (C)
Based upon a review of each of the entire Functional Phrases above, the Examiner finds that the above Functional Phrases do not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed functions that is set forth within the Functional Phrases. In fact, the Examiner finds that the Functional Phrases recites very little structure (if any) for performing the claimed function.
Because the above Functional Phrases do not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function, the Examiner concludes that the above Functional Phrases meet invocation Prong (C).
Corresponding Structure for Functional Phrases
Based upon a review of the original disclosure, the Examiner finds that the corresponding structure/algorithms for functional phrases as follows:
Functional phrase #1
circuitry configured to decode a different tactile signal encoded for each frequency band of a plurality of frequency bands; and output the decoded tactile signal for [each] at least one of the frequency bands-- --Functional phrase #1 or FP#1, as recited in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
-Fig. 12 of the ‘152 Patent.
The first corresponding structure for FP#1
--The first corresponding structure for FP#1 is the hardware in Fig. 12 and the associated algorithm. The algorithm for encoding is described in association with Figs. 8 or 9 in col. 10, line 38-col. 11, line 30 and can be summarized as:
1) receiving a tactile signal having quantization bit length of 12 bits and a sampling frequency of 2000 Hz;
2) Using the band-split filter to split the tactile signal to extract a low frequency band and a high frequency band;
3) downsampling the low frequency band with a sampling frequency of 100 Hz and extracting the upper bits so that 12 bits of signal is reduced to 7 bits by Bit Mask Unit; extracting lower bits of the high frequency band by the Bit Mask Unit so that 12 bits is reduced to 8 bits.
4) multiplexing the low frequency component and the high frequency component to generate stream data shown in Fig. 10.
The decoding algorithm for FP#1 is the reverse of the encoding algorithm above.
The Alternative corresponding structure for FP#1
--The alternative corresponding structure for FP#1 is the hardware in Figs. 15, 18, 24, 28, or 29 and the algorithm. The algorithm associated with the alternative corresponding structure is the same as above.
Functional phrase #2
a non-transitory storage medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by a computer, execute processing comprising: Decoding a different tactile signal encoded for each frequency band of a plurality of frequency bands; and output the decoded tactile signal for [each] at least one of the frequency bands --Functional phrase #2 or FP#2, as recited in claim 13.
--The corresponding structure of FP#2 is the hardware illustrated in Fig. 12 and alternatively the hardware in Figs. 15, 18, 28 or 29 and the corresponding algorithm. The algorithm for encoding is described in association with Figs. 8-9 in col. 10, line 38-col. 11, line 30 and can be summarized as:
1) receiving a tactile signal having quantization bit length of 12 bits and a sampling frequency of 2000 Hz;
2) Using the band-split filter to split the tactile signal to extract a low frequency band and a high frequency band;
3) downsampling the low frequency band with a sampling frequency of 100 Hz and extracting the upper bits so that 12 bits of signal is reduced to 7 bits by Bit Mask Unit; extracting lower bits of the high frequency band by the Bit Mask Unit so that 12 bits is reduced to 8 bits.
4) multiplexing the low frequency component and the high frequency component to generate stream data shown in Fig. 10.
The decoding algorithm is the reverse of the encoding algorithm above. Therefore the corresponding structure of FP#2 is a computer-readable medium storing instructions to perform the reverse of the algorithm above.
Functional phrase #3
the demultiplexing unit is further configured to separate the stream data to extract a low-frequency component and a high-frequency component. --Functional phrase #3 or FP#3, as recited in claim 16.
--The corresponding structure of FP#3 is 51 in Fig. 12 and the algorithm performed by 51 in Fig. 12. The alternatively corresponding structure is 51A in Fig. 15, 51A in Fig. 18, or 71 in Figs. 28 or 29 and the corresponding algorithm performed by these units. For encoding, the multiplexing unit is described in association with 44 in Fig. 9, which multiplexes the low-frequency component received the bit mask unit 43-1 and the high-frequency component received from the bit mask unit 43-2 to generate stream data. The demultiplexing unit 51 in Fig. 12, 51A in Fig. 15, 51A in Fig. 18, or 71 in Figs. 28 or 29 performs the reverse algorithm of the multiplexing unit 44 in Fig. 9.
Functional phrase #4
the first bit addition unit is configured to convert the low-frequency component to 12 bits in a quantization bit length by lower bits addition --Functional phrase #4 or FP#4, as recited in claim 17.
--The corresponding structure of FP#4 is 52-1 in Fig. 12 or alternatively 52A-1 in Fig. 15, 52A-3 in Fig. 18 and the corresponding algorithm. The First Bit Addition Unit performs the reverse algorithm of the First Bit Mask Unit in Fig. 9 which extracts the upper bits so that 12 bits of signal is reduced to 7 bits by Bit Mask Unit. The algorithm of FP#4 or the First Bit Addition Unit is adding the lower bits back so that 7 bits becomes 12 bits.
Functional phrase #5
the upsampler is configured to receive an output of the first bit addition unit and to perform an upsampling process with a sampling frequency --Functional phrase #5 or FP#5, as recited in claim 18.
--The corresponding structure of FP#5 is 53 in Fig. 12 or alternatively 53A-1 or 53A-2 in Fig. 15 in Figs. 15 or 18 and the corresponding algorithm performed by these units. The Upsampler 53 in Fig. 12 performs upsampling of the low frequency band signal with sampling frequency of 2000Hz (“the resultant undergoes an upsampling process by the upsampler 53 with a sampling frequency=2000 Hz, and then the resultant is input to the band synthesis filter 54.” col. 12, lines 50-53 of the ‘152 Patent.
Functional phrase #6
the band synthesis filter is configured to receive an output of the upsampler --Functional phrase #6 or FP#6, as recited in claim 20.
--The corresponding structure of the band synthesis filter or FP#6 is 54 in Fig. 12 or alternatively 54A in Fig. 15.. It is shown that the upsampler in Fig. 12 or Fig. 15 outputs a signal to the band synthesis filter 54 or 54A and the band synthesis filter just receives the signal.
Functional phrase #7
the second bit addition unit is configured to convert the high-frequency component to 12 bits in a quantization bit length by upper bits addition --Functional phrase #7 or FP#7, as recited in claim 21.
--The corresponding structure of the second bit addition unit or FP#7 is 52-2 in Fig. 12 and the corresponding algorithm. The alternative corresponding structure is 52A-2 in Fig. 15 or Fig. 18 and the corresponding algorithm. The corresponding algorithm for the second bit addition unit for encoding is described in association with Figs. 8-9 in col. 10, lines 38-60 and col. 11, lines 22-26 which is extracting lower bits of the high frequency band by the Bit Mask Unit so that 12 bits is reduced to 8 bits.
The decoding algorithm is the reverse of the encoding algorithm above, i.e., adding upper bits back so that 8 bits becomes 12 bits.
Functional phrase #8
the band synthesis filter is configured to receive an output of the second bit addition unit --Functional phrase #8 or FP#8, as recited in claim 22.
--The corresponding structure of the band synthesis filter or FP#8 is illustrated as 54 in Fig. 12 or 54A in Fig. 15 and the corresponding algorithm. It is shown that the second Bit Addition Unit outputs a signal to the band synthesis filter and the band synthesis filter just receives the signal.
Functional phrase #9
the band synthesis filter is configured to synthesize the low-frequency component input from the upsampler and the high-frequency --Functional phrase #9 or FP#9, as recited in claim 23.
--The corresponding structure of the band synthesis filter or FP#9 is illustrated as 54 in Fig. 12 or 54A in Fig. 15 and the corresponding algorithm. The algorithm for encoding is described in association with Figs. 8-9 in col. 10, line 38-col. 11, line 30. The band synthesis filter performs the reverse algorithm of the band split filter 41 in Fig. 9 which is splitting the tactile signal by extracting a low frequency band and a high frequency band as described in col. 10, lines 40-57 and col. 11, lines 4-11. The corresponding algorithm for FP#9 is the reverse of the encoding algorithm performed by the band split filter 41.
Functional phrase #10
circuitry to configured to: acquire a composite tactile signal consisting of the plurality of the respective band-specific tactile signals --Functional phrase #10 or FP#10, as recited in claim 24.
--The corresponding structure of FP#10 is the input of data in the form of Fig. 10 to the circuitry in Figs. 12, 15, or 18.
4) Analysis of other dependent claims
Claims 2-11 depends on claim 1, claims 17-23 depend on claim 16. The Functional Phrases FP#1 and FP#3 in claims 2-11 and 17-23 (if applicable) also invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f). Therefore analysis of the corresponding structures for the above Functional Phrases modified by claims 2-11 and 17-23 are the same as identified above for the corresponding Functional Phrases.
VII. CLAIM OBJECTIONS
A. Explanation of support
CFR 1.173(c) states:
(c) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status ( i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.
Claims 1 and 12-23 are objected to because there is no sufficient explanation of support of the new or amended limitation of claims 1, 12-23 by the Applicant. Applicant does not provide support for the amended limitations in claims 1 and 12-13 and each of the new limitations of claims 14-23. Applicant indicated the support for the new claims as:
PNG
media_image2.png
136
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
-Nov. 2024 Remarks. p. 6.
However, the above explanation of support is not sufficient because the support for each of the new limitations or new claims should be identified.
Appropriate correction is required.
Although the presentation of the amended claim need not contain any indication of what is changed from the previous version of the claim, applicant must point out what is changed in the "Remarks" portion of the amendment along with the support for the change. See MPEP §1453(V) (D).
The Examiner note that the indication can be via a separate appendix to the remarks showing the changes with respect to the last submission. Although the official claim amendments must only show markings with respect to the original patent, an appendix to the remarks showing changes with respect to the last submission would satisfy the requirement of the Remarks pointing out what has changed.
Applicant is notified that any amendment or subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 C.F.R. §1.173, which sets forth the manner of making amendments in reissue applications. For example, matter deleted should be enclosed with brackets and added subject matter should be identified by underlining. Furthermore, all amendments to the original patented claims must be made with respect to the patent. For the new claims, amendment must preserve the claim ordering as they were first presented during the prosecution. Finally, claims must have proper status identifiers.
B. Note
In order to facilitate compact prosecution, the Examiner has, this one time only, entered the 2024 Claim Amendment and 2025 Claim Amendment. Nevertheless, should Applicant(s) submit any subsequent claim amendment that does include an explanation of support, the Examiner may indicate that the claim amendment(s) are improper and therefore not completely responsive.
VIII. CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 251
A. Original Patenting Requirement
MPEP §1412.01 states that the reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention of the original patent. MPEP 1412.01 further provides guidelines for determining whether the reissue claims are “for the invention disclosed in the original patent” as:
(A) the claims presented in the reissue application are described in the original patent specification and enabled by the original patent specification such that 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is satisfied;
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(B) nothing in the original patent specification indicates an intent not to claim the subject matter of the claims presented in the reissue application; and
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(C) the newly claimed invention is clearly and unequivocally disclosed in the specification as a separate invention with the claimed combination of features.
The Fed. Cir. addressed the “original patent” requirement in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc., 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The court stated that “a reissue claim is for the ‘same invention’ if the original patent specification fully describes the claimed inventions, but not if the broader claims ‘are [] merely suggested or indicated in the original specification.” Antares, 112 USPQ2d at 1868 (citing U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Industrial Chemicals). Further, the court stated “‘it is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification.’ Rather, the specification must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.” Antares, 112 USPQ2d at 1871 (citing U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Industrial Chemicals) (citation omitted), or that “the exact embodiment claimed on reissue [be] expressly disclosed in the specification.” Id.
Recently, the Fed. Cir. stated:
Thus, for broadening reissue claims, the specification of the original patent must do more than merely suggest or indicate the invention recited in reissue claims; “[I]t must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.” Indus Chems, 315 US at 676 (emphasis in Forum US). Stated differently, the original patent “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.” Antares, 771 F.3d at 1362. Forum US Inc. v. Flow Valve LLC (decided: June 17, 2019).
Claims 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §251 because they do not comply with the original patent requirement. In summary the invention as now claimed was not unequivocally disclosed in the specification of the ‘152 Patent as a separate invention or not for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent. In more detail the Examiner notes the following:
As provided in §251, the Director shall issue reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the “original patent.” To meet the original patent requirement, the specification of the original patent “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.” See Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc., 771 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “[I]t is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification.” Id. Specifically, the invention now being claimed in reissue must be expressly disclosed in the specification of the original patent. Id. at 1363.2
Based on these decisions, Examiners find this analysis involves a simple two-step process: (1) determine what is the new invention now being claimed, i.e., how the claims have been broadened, and (2) is that new invention or new scope of invention unequivocally disclosed in the specification as a separate invention.
As to (1), the Examiners finds that the original patent claims 14-25 have been broadened. For example, independent claims 14, 25-26 of this instant reissue application no longer require the following claim elements:
decoding a different tactile signal encoded for each frequency band of a plurality of frequency bands; and
outputting the decoded tactile signal for at least one of the frequency bands.
The invention being claimed now does not require the above steps.
As to (2), after the Examiners reviewed the ‘152 Patent, the Examiners could not find an equivocal disclosure in the ‘152 Patent that does not have the corresponding steps or components for decoding tactile signal. Although the dependent claims may recites some steps or components for decoding as disclosed in the ‘152 patent. Further, without the decoding steps or circuitry for decoding, the Examiners do not find the decoding apparatus would operate as intended. Rather the decoding apparatus is dependent on every steps of the decoding process as described. In other words, the Examiner could not find an embodiment that does not require the steps for decoding as described in Figs. 12, 15 and 18.
Because claims 14-25 are broader in scope than the patented claims of the ‘152 Patent, and because the new scope of claims 14-25 is directed to an invention not unequivocally disclosed in the ‘152 Patent as a separate invention, claims 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §251 as not complying with the original patent requirement.
Examiners further find this situation is analogous to the recent Federal Circuit decision in Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, 926 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In Forum US, the original patent claims were drawn to a workpiece having a body member and a plurality of arbors (arbors circled in FIGS. 4 and 5 at issue):
PNG
media_image4.png
267
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Forum US, 926 F.3d at 1348-49. In reissue, patentee broadened the claims to simply remove the requirement as to arbors. Id. at 1349. The Federal Circuit determined that the new claims did not comply with the original patent requirement of section 251 because the face of the patent did not disclose any arbor-less embodiment, and the abstract, summary of invention, and all disclosed embodiments including arbors. Id. at 1352. The Court concluded that the specification did not clearly and unequivocally disclose an embodiment without arbors, thus the original patent requirement was violated by broadening the claims to no longer require arbors. Id. Similarly, the 800 Patent here does not clearly and unequivocally disclose a chuck assembly with an electrostatic puck without the electrode and heating element. Thus, to broaden the claims to permit Applicant to claim such an invention runs afoul of the original patent requirement in the same manner as at issue in Forum.
B. Improper Recapture
Claims 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenland Systems, Inc. et al v. Micro LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shah ram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
Below are the pertinent Examiner’s findings of fact in the prosecution history of the `171 application relevant to this rejection:
Feb. 1, 2021 Claims 1-13 were originally filed. The originally filed claim 1 and claim 9 are
PNG
media_image5.png
118
664
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
108
584
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Nov. 18, 2021 The originally filed claims 1-13 were rejected under 35 USC 102/103.
Feb. 17. 2022 Applicant filed a response to the non-final office action. Claim 1 was amended below:
PNG
media_image7.png
96
710
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Similar amendment was made to claim 12. Applicant also argued that prior art on the record did not teach the amended limitation.
Mar. 14, 2022 Another office action was mailed and rejection under 35 USC 101 was advanced.
Jun. 14, 2022 Applicant filed another claim amendment to overcome the rejection.
Jul. 13, 2022 The Office mailed a notice of allowance.
A reissue will not be granted to “recapture” claimed subject matter which was surrendered in an application to obtain the original patent. See MPEP §1412.20. A three step process is used to apply the recapture rule:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.” See MPEP §1412.02(I).
As to Step (1) above, claims 1 and 9 of the `171 application were amended and argued specifically by the Applicant and the Examiner allowed the claims based on the amendment and the arguments. The new independent claims 14, 24 and 25 of the instant reissue application broadened the above amended limitation.
14. A decoding unit comprising:
a demultiplexing unit;
a first bit addition unit connected to the demultiplexing unit;
a second bit addition unit connected to the demultiplexing unit;
an upsampler connected to the first bit addition unit; and
a band synthesis filter.
24. (New) A signal processing apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to:
obtain a respective band-specific tactile signal for each of a plurality of frequency bands;
apply a gain to each of the respective band-specific tactile signals; and
acquire a composite tactile signal consisting of the plurality of the respective band specific tactile signals.
25. (New) A signal processing method comprising:
obtaining a respective band-specific tactile signal for each of a plurality of frequency bands;
applying a gain to each of the respective band-specific tactile signals; and
acquiring a composite tactile signal consisting of the plurality of the respective band-specific tactile signals.
For example, Claims 14, 24-25 of the instant reissue application eliminate the limitation:
decode a different tactile signal encoded for each frequency band of a plurality of frequency bands; and output the decoded tactile signal for each of the frequency band.
which correspond to the broader aspect of claims 14 and 24 and 25.
As to Step (2) above, as indicated by the facts summarized above dated above, the eliminated features cited above of claims 1 and 12 of the `171 application or claims 1 and 13 of the ‘152 patent were surrendered in the original prosecution and related to the broader aspects of the reissue claims 14 and 24-25.
As to Step (3) above and based on the comparison of claims 14 and 24-25 of the instant reissue application and claims 1 and 13 of the ‘152 patent, the Examiner determines that the reissue claims are not materially narrowed in other respects and the scope of the reissue claims have indeed been enlarged, and hence the recapture rule applies. See MPEP §1412.02(I).
Therefore claims 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based.
IX. CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 14 recites “a decoding unit comprising” different units. That is, the scope of the presently claimed unit can range from paper on which the program is written, to a program simply contemplated and memorized by a person. The examiner suggests amending the claim to embody the program on “computer-readable medium” or equivalent in order to make the claim statutory. Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
IX. CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
A. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rank et al (US Patent Pub. 2015/007152, “Rank”).
Regarding claim 12, Rank teaches a decoding method comprising:
decoding a different tactile signal encoded for each frequency band of a plurality of
frequency bands ([0035] and [0037], [0042] and Fig. 4 and associated descriptions, high frequency band stand definition signals are decoded); and
outputting the decoded tactile signal for at least one of the frequency bands (Fig. 4 and associated descriptions).
B. Claims 14-16 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al (US Patent Pub. 2003/0142746, “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka teaches a decoding unit comprising:
a demultiplexing unit (401 in Fig. 7);
a first bit addition unit connected to the demultiplexing unit (402 in Fig. 7) ;
a second bit addition unit connected to the demultiplexing unit (404 in Fig. 7);
an upsampler connected to the first bit addition unit (701 in Fig. 7); and
a band synthesis filter (405 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka teaches the decoding unit of claim 14, wherein the demultiplexing unit is configured to receive stream data (401 in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka teaches the decoding unit of claim 14, wherein the demultiplexing unit is further configured to separate the stream data to extract a low-frequency component and a high-frequency component (401 in Fig. 7 and associated descriptions).
Regarding claim 24, Tanaka teaches a signal processing apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to:
obtain a respective band-specific tactile signal for each of a plurality of frequency bands (Fig. 4 and Fig. 7 and associated descriptions);
apply a gain to each of the respective band-specific tactile signals ([0067], [0068] and Figs. 4 and 7 and associated descriptions); and
acquire a composite tactile signal consisting of the plurality of the respective band specific tactile signals (405 in Fig. 4 and Fig. 7 and associated descriptions).
Claim 25 is the corresponding method claim of claim 24 and Tanaka teaches the method as explained above for claim 24.
X. 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.
A. Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US Patent Pub. 2003/0142746, “Tanaka”).
Regarding claims 17 and 21, Tanaka teaches the decoding unit of claim 16. However Tanaka does not expressly disclose “wherein the first bit addition unit is configured to convert the low-frequency component to 12 bits in a quantization bit length by lower bits addition” nor “wherein the second bit addition unit is configured to convert the high-frequency component to 12 bits in a quantization bit length by upper bits addition.”
However, Tanaka discloses
The bit allocating unit 106 determines bit allocation 115 required for quantization and outputs such bit allocation 115 to the quantizing unit 107. The quantizing unit 107 quantizes MDCT coefficients 113 for which processing is performed in the spectral signal processing unit 105 with the number of bits indicated by the bit allocation 115. Quantization is performed for a combination of normalized gain information of each sub-band called the scale factor and values of MDCT coefficients normalized by the scale factor…. Note that in the case of the AAC, since the number of bits to be allocated for the basic frame can be arbitrarily determined on a per-frame basis, encoding is basically performed at a variable bit rate.
-[0006] of Tanaka, emphasis added.
The lower frequency band encoding unit 202 encodes the low frequency signal 208 to output a low frequency code 213. Note that any one of known encoding units can be employed as the lower frequency band encoding unit 202 here.
-[0056] of Tanaka, emphasis added.
Converting the low frequency component to a certain bits in a quantization bit length is obvious by the teaching of Tanaka above because any one of known encoding units can be employed and quantization as disclosed in [0006] of Tanaka is well known in the art. It is desirable to perform encoding/decoding based on signal and human characteristics ([0002] of Tanaka) and restore signal after compression or encoding. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time the ‘152 Patent was effectively filed, to convert the low-frequency component back to 12 bits in a quantization bit length by lower bits addition in the decoding unit of Tanaka to restore the signal that is encoded.
Regarding claims 18 and claim 19, Tanaka teach the decoding unit of claim 17, wherein the upsampler is configured to receive an output of the first bit addition unit and to perform an upsampling process with a sampling frequency (701 in Fig. 7 and associated descriptions).,
Tanaka teaches “Also in the case of up-sampling, processing is performed by regarding decoded low frequency coefficients as coefficients acquired as a result of transforming a signal at a sampling frequency after up-sampling is performed.” ([0113]). See also [0079]-[0081]. Although Tanaka does not expressly teach the sampling frequency is 2000Hz, it is obvious that the frequency can be 2000Hz depending on the frequency of the down-sampling frequency of the coefficients in the encoding unit. It is desirable to be flexible in applying down-sampling and up sampling of coefficients and it is desirable to providing an encoding device, a decoding device with allow high-quality decoding of an audio signal in a wide bandwidth on the part of the decoding device ([0008]-[0011] of Tanaka). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of the invention, to set the upsampling frequency to be 2000Hz.
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka teaches the decoding unit of claim 18, wherein the band synthesis filter is configured to receive an output of the upsampler (405 in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 22, Tanaka teaches the decoding unit of claim 21, wherein the band synthesis filter is configured to receive an output of the second bit addition unit (405 in Fig. 7).
B. Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Rank et al (US Patent Pub. 2015/007152, “Rank”).
Regarding 24, Tanaka teaches a signal processing apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to:
obtain a respective band-specific [tactile] signal for each of a plurality of frequency bands (Fig. 4 and Fig. 7 and associated descriptions);
apply a gain to each of the respective band-specific [tactile] signals ([0067], [0068] and Figs. 4 and 7 and associated descriptions); and
acquire a composite [tactile] signal consisting of the plurality of the respective band specific tactile signals (405 in Fig. 4 and Fig. 7 and associated descriptions).
However Tanaka does not expressly teach the signal being processed is “tactile.” In the same field of endeavor of signal processing, Rank discloses tactile signals being more and more useful in providing cues to users of electronic devices to alert the user to specific events, or provide realistic feedback to create greater sensory immersion ([0003] of Rank). Therefore it would have been obvious to use Tanaka’s method to process tactile signals to encode or decode tactile signals so that tactile signals can be stored or transmitted efficiently and reproduced with better quality ([0002] of Tanaka).
Claim 25 is the corresponding method claim of claim 24 and Tanaka in view of Rank teaches or makes obvious the method as explained above for claim 24.
XI. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1-11 and 13 are allowed. Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rejections under 35 USC ¶ 251 are overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
For claims 1-11 and 13, FP#1 and FP#2 invoke § 112 (f). The prior art such as Tanaka and Rank fail to teach the corresponding structure identified in the section of Claim Interpretation above.
For claim 23, FP#9 in claim 23 invokes § 112 (f). The prior art such as Tanaka and Rank fails to disclose the corresponding structure of FP#9 in claim 23 identified the section of Claim Interpretation above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
XII. CONCLUSION
A. Reissue Application Reminders
Disclosure of other proceedings. Applicants are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the Patent Under Reissue is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Disclosure of material information. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Manner of making amendments. Applicant is reminded that changes to the Instant Application must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.173, such that all amendments are made in respect to the Patent Under Reissue as opposed to any prior changes entered in the Instant Application. All added material must be underlined, and all omitted material must be enclosed in brackets, in accordance with Rule 173. Applicant may submit an appendix to any response in which claims are marked up to show changes with respect to a previous set of claims, however, such claims should be clearly denoted as “not for entry.”
B. Suggested Examples: Preventing Both New Matter Rejections & Objections to the Specification in the Future
Applicants are respectfully reminded that any suggestions or examples of claim language provided by the Examiner are just that—suggestions or examples—and do not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner. To be especially clear, any suggestion or example provided in this Office Action (or in any future office action) does not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner.
Should Applicants decide to amend the claims, Applicant is also reminded that—like always—no new matter is allowed. The Examiner therefore leaves it up to Applicants to choose the precise claim language of the amendment in order to ensure that the amended language complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph.
Independent of the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph, Applicants are also respectfully reminded that when amending a particular claim, all claim terms must have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Should Applicants amend the claims such that the claim language no longer has clear support or antecedent basis in the specification, an objection to the specification may result. Therefore, in these situations where the amended claim language does not have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification and to prevent a subsequent ‘Objection to the Specification’ in the next office action, Applicants are encouraged to either (1) re-evaluate the amendment and change the claim language so the claims do have clear support or antecedent basis or, (2) amend the specification to ensure that the claim language does have clear support or antecedent basis. See again MPEP § 608.01(o) (¶3). Should Applicants choose to amend the specification, Applicants are reminded that—like always—no new matter in the specification is allowed. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). If Applicants have any questions on this matter, Applicants are encouraged to contact the Examiner via the telephone number listed below.
C. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to YUZHEN GE whose telephone number is (571)272-7636. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of reissue applications may be obtained from the USPTO’s “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.
/Yuzhen Ge/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 While most interpretations are cited because these terms are found in the claims, the Examiner may have provided additional interpretations to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the interpretations themselves, the 523 Patent, or in the prior art.
2 See also Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, 926 F.3d 1346 at 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1029, precedential) (For broadening reissue claims, “the specification of the original patent must do more than merely suggest or indicate the invention recited in the reissue claims,” rather “it must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.”).
Prosecution Insights