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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 07/12/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasayama (US 2022/0238083 A1) in view of Wan (US 2019/0022347 A1), further in view of Fabry et al. (US 2020/0269008 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sasayama discloses a motion sickness suppression device (Sasayama discloses an information processing device 100 that may be regarded as an in-vehicle device, placed in an automobile for the purpose of displaying motion sickness prevention information to vehicle occupants. See Sasayama at [0044].) comprising:
a sickness determination unit (Sasayama discloses a judgment unit 160 added to the information processing device 100. See Sasayama at [0172] (FIG. 23). The judgment unit 160 is a functional component of the device whose express purpose is to evaluate the passenger's motion sickness state. See Sasayama at [0173]. The judgment unit 160 corresponds to the claimed sickness determination unit.) which determines a degree of motion sickness of a passenger (Sasayama teaches the judgment unit 160 "judges a current motion sickness level of the passenger or a future motion sickness level of the passenger." See Sasayama at [0173]. The judged motion sickness level is a quantified characterization of the passenger's motion sickness state and constitutes the claimed degree of motion sickness. The judgment unit 160 derives this level from biological information including brain waves, nictation, heartbeat, expiration, body temperature, barycenter vacillation, perspiration, and skin conductance acquired via a biological information acquisition device. See Sasayama at [0179]. Sasayama further discloses that the judgment unit 160 may employ machine learning to increase the accuracy of the motion sickness level calculation, reinforcing that the level is a substantive analytical output. See Sasayama at [0182].) viewing a viewing target displayed on a display device in a conveyance (Sasayama teaches at [0003]: "A passenger of a conveyance such as an automobile or a ship can suffer from motion sickness. The passenger feels sick especially when the passenger is looking at an in-vehicle display or a smartphone." This sentence establishes the conveyance (automobile or ship), the passenger, the display device (in-vehicle display or smartphone), and the viewing target (the content on that display being viewed by the passenger). Sasayama further discloses specific display devices within the vehicle on which both the viewing target and the suppression display are presented, including a liquid crystal display 12, a car navigation screen, and an instrument panel. See Sasayama at [0078].); and
a suppression control unit (Sasayama discloses a control unit 150 that receives the motion sickness level determination from the judgment unit 160 and responsively controls the display of motion sickness prevention information on the display device. See Sasayama at [0173], [0186]. The control unit 150 corresponds to the claimed suppression control unit.) for suppressing motion sickness according to the determined degree of motion sickness (Sasayama teaches that the suppression display is controlled according to the determined degree of motion sickness. Specifically, the control unit 150 determines whether to display the motion sickness prevention information based directly on the judged motion sickness level: "if the prediction information indicates that the automobile is scheduled to rotate at the first place and the current motion sickness level is higher than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the control unit 150 determines to display the motion sickness prevention information." See Sasayama at [0186]. The display decision is thus directly and expressly contingent on the determined degree.) and displays the mode on the display device (Sasayama teaches displaying the suppression display on the display device. The control unit 150 causes the motion sickness prevention information to be displayed on the same display devices identified above, including the liquid crystal display 12, the car navigation system screen, and other in-vehicle display surfaces. See Sasayama at [0078]. Sasayama preserves the viewing target by expressly providing that "the motion sickness prevention information is not displayed at the center of the visual field," see Sasayama at [0082], confirming that the suppression display and the viewing target coexist on the same display device simultaneously.),
wherein the suppression control unit
displays the suppression display on the basis of an attitude of the conveyance (Sasayama teaches that the display of the motion sickness prevention information is based on the attitude of the automobile. Sasayama discloses that the current condition information generation unit 120 calculates "a rotation direction represented by roll, pitch and yaw, a rotation direction with reference to a different rotation axis, a frequency, an angular speed, amplitude, and the like." See Sasayama at [0058]. Roll, pitch, and yaw are the components of vehicle attitude as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Sasayama expressly identifies the rotation cases that trigger the display as including "a case where the automobile travels on an uneven road, a case where the automobile travels while leaning to the left or right." See Sasayama at [0061]. Sasayama further teaches that information "regarding roll, pitch and yaw has been associated with the first place included in the route information. The prediction information generation unit 130 generates the prediction information by using the information regarding roll, pitch and yaw." See Sasayama at [0063]. Sasayama at [0091] expressly ties the displayed suppression information to the attitude of the vehicle: "in a case where the automobile moves upward at a future time on an uneven road, the control unit 150 makes the display device display the motion sickness prevention information moving from bottom to top. In a case where the automobile moves downward at a future time on an uneven road, the control unit 150 makes the display device display the motion sickness prevention information moving from top to bottom." The control unit 150 thus displays the suppression display on the basis of the attitude of the conveyance.), and
controls the display of the display device so that the suppression display becomes emphasized and a contrast of a display of the viewing target in the display device decreases as the determined degree of motion sickness becomes worse (see the discussion of Wan and Fabry below).
Sasayama does not expressly disclose "which switches a mode of suppression display," nor does Sasayama expressly disclose controlling the display of the display device so that the suppression display becomes emphasized as the determined degree of motion sickness becomes worse. Sasayama teaches the control unit 150 activates or deactivates a single type of motion sickness prevention information based on whether the motion sickness level meets a single threshold (i.e., a binary on/off determination). See Sasayama at [0186]. While Sasayama at [0189] references "various threshold values" in a permissive optional context, Sasayama does not explicitly disclose selecting among multiple graduated and visually distinct modes of suppression display, each corresponding to a different degree of motion sickness severity. Sasayama teaches that the control unit 150 can control the density, contrast, size, amount, and transmittance of the motion sickness prevention information, see Sasayama at [0149], [0166], [0167], and [0168], but does not explicitly teach graduated emphasis of the suppression display scaled to the determined degree of motion sickness.
Wan teaches switching among multiple graduated and distinct modes of suppression display according to the determined degree of motion sickness, and controlling the display so that the suppression display becomes emphasized as that degree becomes worse. Wan discloses a mitigation module 138 (suppression control unit) that selects a level of display modification "commensurate with the calculated MSV value and its indication of predicted motion sickness." See Wan at [0058]. The MSV is an aggregate quantified value representing the degree of motion sickness of the vehicle occupant. See Wan at [0019] and [0056]. Wan further discloses that the visual display system presents the suppression display with greater illumination intensity and escalating color emphasis as severity increases, displaying the suppression display in green when the level is low, in yellow when the level is moderate, and in red when the level is high. See Wan at [0058] and [0067]. These three display states are qualitatively distinct modes of suppression display, each selected according to a different degree of motion sickness, displayed on the vehicle's visual display system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasayama's information processing device to incorporate Wan's multi-level graduated mode switching and emphasis scaling because both references are directed to the identical problem of suppressing motion sickness in vehicle occupants using in-vehicle display systems responsive to passenger state monitoring, Sasayama itself contemplates the use of "various threshold values" at [0189], feedback-based adjustment of the suppression display at [0092], and control of the density, contrast, size, and transmittance of the displayed suppression information at [0149], [0166], [0167], and [0168], indicating that Sasayama's system was already configured for graduated and adjustable display output and that a single binary threshold was understood as a simplified implementation that could be extended, and incorporating Wan's teaching of selecting among multiple suppression display modes commensurate with the calculated degree of motion sickness would predictably and directly improve the effectiveness and precision of Sasayama's system by providing graduated suppression responses scaled to the actual severity of the passenger's motion sickness rather than a single undifferentiated response, a result that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a straightforward application of known principles.
Sasayama in view of Wan does not expressly disclose that a contrast of a display of the viewing target in the display device decreases as the determined degree of motion sickness becomes worse. Sasayama at [0166] addresses the contrast of the suppression display itself rather than the contrast of the viewing target. Wan at [0058] and [0067] teaches graduated suppression display emphasis commensurate with the degree of motion sickness but does not explicitly teach reducing the contrast of the viewing target.
Fabry discloses that a suppression display in the form of a motion simulation video or animation is displayed on a display screen, and that the viewing target content – expressly identified as including text, apps, games, images, videos, and webpages – is "overlaid/superimposed with a degree of opacity over top of the pictured video or animation simulation." See Fabry at [0060]. Fabry teaches that the opacity is variable, with exemplary values of about 5%, 15%, 25%, 35%, 45%, 55%, 65%, 75%, 85%, or 95%, and that "the opacity of the overlay may be dynamically adapted by one or more components of the system and/or control circuitry thereof." See Fabry at [0060]. Fabry expressly teaches that the "displayed video imagery may be responsive to measured or reported severity of motion sickness symptoms." See Fabry at [0060]. As the suppression display becomes more prominent relative to the overlaid viewing target content in response to increasing measured motion sickness severity, the effective contrast of the viewing target as perceived by the passenger correspondingly decreases. Fabry therefore teaches that the contrast of the viewing target decreases as the degree of motion sickness becomes worse.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Sasayama in view of Wan to incorporate Fabry's severity-responsive opacity-based contrast control of the viewing target because all three references are directed to suppressing motion sickness in passengers viewing display content, Sasayama at [0166] already teaches controlling the contrast and density of display elements on the same display device on which the viewing target is presented, Fabry's variable opacity mechanism is a known and straightforward technique for reducing viewing target contrast using the same display device, and combining Fabry's severity-responsive contrast reduction with the graduated degree-commensurate display scaling already established in the Sasayama/Wan combination would predictably yield a system in which the contrast of the viewing target decreases as the degree of motion sickness becomes worse, a result that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a straightforward implementation of the graduated emphasis concept already present in the combination.
Regarding claim 2, Sasayama in view of Wan and Fabry discloses the motion sickness suppression device according to claim 1, wherein the sickness determination unit determines the degree of motion sickness on the basis of a passenger state (Sasayama explicitly teaches that the judgment unit 160 judges the current motion sickness level on the basis of biological information acquired from the passenger, including brain waves, nictation, heartbeat, expiration, body temperature, barycenter vacillation, perspiration, and skin conductance, all detected by a biological information acquisition device. See Sasayama at [0179] and [0182]. These physiological and behavioral indicators directly reflect the current physical condition of the passenger and constitute a passenger state. The motivation to combine Sasayama, Wan, and Fabry is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1.).
Regarding claim 3, Sasayama in view of Wan and Fabry discloses the motion sickness suppression device according to claim 2, wherein the sickness determination unit determines the degree of motion sickness on the basis of vital data of the passenger detected by a sensor (Sasayama explicitly teaches that the biological information used to judge the motion sickness level includes heartbeat, expiration, body temperature, barycenter vacillation, perspiration, and skin conductance, all of which are vital data of the passenger. See Sasayama at [0179]. Sasayama further teaches that this biological information is detected by a biological information acquisition device, which constitutes a sensor. See Sasayama at [0179] ("The current condition information generation unit 120 acquires biological information on the passenger via a biological information acquisition device."). Heartbeat, body temperature, perspiration, and skin conductance are the type of physiological measurements that constitute vital data. The motivation to combine Sasayama, Wan, and Fabry is the same as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 2.).
Regarding claim 4, Sasayama in view of Wan and Fabry discloses the motion sickness suppression device according to claim 2, wherein the sickness determination unit determines the degree of motion sickness on the basis of image data of the passenger captured by an imaging device (Sasayama teaches that the biological information used to judge the motion sickness level can be acquired by a non-contact biological information acquisition device, and expressly identifies a driver monitoring system as an example of such a non-contact device. See Sasayama at [0179]. Sasayama further teaches at [0057] that the condition of the passenger, including the motion sickness level, is identified based on information acquired from a driver monitoring system. A driver monitoring system is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a camera-based imaging system that captures image data of the passenger, and thus constitutes an imaging device capturing image data of the passenger. To the extent additional support is needed, Wan explicitly teaches that interior cameras 94 capture image data of the passenger, specifically including facial expression, and that this image data is used as a direct input to the occupant motion sickness value MSVo calculation representing the degree of motion sickness. See Wan at [0051] and [0054]. Accordingly, the combination teaches determining the degree of motion sickness on the basis of image data of the passenger captured by an imaging device. The motivation to combine Sasayama, Wan, and Fabry is the same as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 2.).
Regarding claim 5, Sasayama in view of Wan and Fabry discloses the motion sickness suppression device according to claim 1, wherein the sickness determination unit determines the degree of motion sickness on the basis of an input instruction by the passenger (Fabry teaches that user input from the subject can regard "at least one of a start, an end, a presence of, or an intensity of a motion sickness episode." See Fabry at [0064]. The intensity of a motion sickness episode directly corresponds to the degree of motion sickness. Fabry further teaches that the threshold value used for motion sickness determination can be altered based on this user input, confirming that the passenger's intensity input directly affects the determination of the motion sickness degree. See Fabry at [0064]. Wan likewise contemplates passenger input to the motion sickness determination, disclosing that the occupant reports motion sickness by entering a value through the interface 98 and that the mitigation system responds to that occupant report. See Wan at [0057]. Accordingly, the combination teaches determining the degree of motion sickness on the basis of an input instruction by the passenger. The motivation to combine Sasayama, Wan, and Fabry is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1.).
Regarding claim 6, Sasayama in view of Wan and Fabry discloses the motion sickness suppression device according to claim 1, wherein the sickness determination unit determines the degree of motion sickness on the basis of behavior of the conveyance within a predetermined time period in the past or a location of the conveyance (With respect to behavior of the conveyance within a predetermined time period in the past, Wan teaches that the vehicle motion sickness value MSVv, which represents the degree of motion sickness attributable to vehicle dynamics, is calculated by integrating the squared frequency weighted accelerations of the vehicle across the x, y, and z axes and roll, pitch, and yaw over time. See Wan at [0053]. This integration over time expressly accumulates vehicle behavior across a past time period and uses that accumulated behavior as the basis for the motion sickness degree calculation, directly teaching the first alternative of the claim. With respect to a location of the conveyance, Wan teaches that the pre-trip prediction module 132 generates a route profile using GPS location information and map data, and that this location-based route profile is used to assess the likelihood and degree of motion sickness the occupant will experience. See Wan at [0049]-[0050]. Specifically, Wan teaches that factors increasing the risk and degree of motion sickness include route characteristics identified from GPS data such as the number of vehicle behavior changes, bumpy roads, and other location-dependent conditions. See Wan at [0050]. This directly teaches the second alternative of the claim, namely determining the degree of motion sickness on the basis of a location of the conveyance. Accordingly, Wan teaches determining the degree of motion sickness on the basis of behavior of the conveyance within a predetermined time period in the past or a location of the conveyance. The motivation to combine Sasayama, Wan, and Fabry is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1.).
Regarding claim 7, Sasayama in view of Wan and Fabry discloses the motion sickness suppression device according to claim 1, wherein the sickness determination unit determines the degree of motion sickness on the basis of information on resistance of the passenger to the motion sickness (Wan discloses that the occupant motion sickness value MSVo (which represents the degree of motion sickness of the passenger) is calculated using a susceptibility value S as a direct input factor. See Wan at [0054] (disclosing the formula for MSVo). The susceptibility value S is expressly described as indicative of the occupant's susceptibility to motion sickness and is obtained from the occupant profile 148. See Wan at [0050] ("factors indicating the occupant is at increased risk to experience motion sickness at early stage of the trip include the occupant's motion sickness susceptibility, such as based on age and other factors obtained from the occupant profile 148"). An occupant's susceptibility to motion sickness directly corresponds to the occupant's resistance to motion sickness, both are characterizations of the individual passenger's personal tolerance or sensitivity to motion sickness. Accordingly, Wan's susceptibility value S, derived from the occupant profile and used as a direct input to the degree of motion sickness calculation, constitutes information on the resistance of the passenger to motion sickness. The motivation to combine Sasayama, Wan, and Fabry is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1.).
Regarding claim 8, Sasayama in view of Wan and Fabry discloses the motion sickness suppression device according to claim 7, further comprising: a resistance information management unit which updates the resistance information on the basis of a change history of the degree of motion sickness changed according to an input instruction by the passenger (Wan discloses that the occupant interacts with the motion sickness mitigation system through the interface 98 during a trip to adjust or override the mitigation regimen, and that these occupant selections are saved to the occupant profile 148. See Wan at [0060]. Wan further teaches that the weights assigned to factors in the occupant profile, including the susceptibility value S which constitutes the resistance information as established in the rejection of claim 7, are adjusted after each trip according to the occupant's response as indicated through the interface 98, with prediction accuracy increasing as the number of trips and accumulated responses grows. See Wan at [0050]. This accumulated saving and weight adjustment across multiple trips constitutes a change history of passenger input instructions used to update the resistance information, and the processor 114 that executes this updating constitutes the resistance information management unit. See Wan at [0042]. Fabry teaches that the passenger input specifies the degree of motion sickness, disclosing that user input from the subject can regard the intensity of a motion sickness episode and that the threshold value used for motion sickness determination can be altered based on this user input. See Fabry at [0064]. The intensity of a motion sickness episode directly corresponds to the degree of motion sickness. Accordingly, the combination teaches a resistance information management unit which updates the resistance information on the basis of a change history of the degree of motion sickness changed according to an input instruction by the passenger. The motivation to combine Sasayama, Wan, and Fabry is the same as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 7.).
Regarding claim 9, Sasayama in view of Wan and Fabry discloses the motion sickness suppression device according to claim 1, wherein the suppression display is a horizontal line (Sasayama explicitly identifies stripe information as one of the disclosed forms of motion sickness prevention information. See Sasayama at [0081]. A horizontal line is a form of stripe information as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and selecting a horizontal line from among Sasayama's expressly disclosed suppression display options would have been an obvious implementation detail with predictable results. This conclusion is further supported by applicant's own admission in the instant specification (see Description of Related Art) that displaying a horizontal line on a display screen in a vehicle to suppress motion sickness was known in the prior art before the filing of the instant application. See MPEP 2129. Selecting a horizontal line as the specific form of the suppression display therefore represents nothing more than the application of a known suppression display form to Sasayama's suppression display system, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine Sasayama, Wan, and Fabry is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1.).
Regarding claim 11, Sasayama in view of Wan and Fabry discloses the motion sickness suppression device according to claim 1, wherein the suppression control unit controls the display of the display device so that a viewing target display area in the display device is reduced and a display area of the suppression display is enlarged as the determined degree of motion sickness becomes worse (Sasayama's control unit 150 constitutes the suppression control unit, the motion sickness prevention information constitutes the suppression display, and Wan teaches that the suppression display becomes more emphasized commensurate with the determined degree of motion sickness. See Sasayama at [0078] and [0173]; Wan at [0058] and [0067]. Sasayama expressly teaches that the control unit 150 can control the size and amount of the motion sickness prevention information displayed on the display device. See Sasayama at [0149] and [0167]. Sasayama further teaches that the suppression display and the viewing target coexist on the same display device. See Sasayama at [0082]. Because both elements share the same display screen, increasing the area of the suppression display necessarily and correspondingly reduces the area available for the viewing target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Wan's teaching of graduated suppression display emphasis by increasing the size of Sasayama's suppression display commensurate with the degree of motion sickness using the size and amount controls expressly available in Sasayama at [0149] and [0167], thereby correspondingly reducing the viewing target display area on the same display device, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine Sasayama, Wan, and Fabry is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1.).
Claim 13, as amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasayama in view of Wan and Fabry for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 13 recites the same limitations as claim 1 set forth as method steps performed by a computer, and the prior art applied to reject claim 1 reads on the method steps of claim 13 for the same reasons. The motivation to combine Sasayama, Wan, and Fabry is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 14, as amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasayama in view of Wan and Fabry for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 14 recites the same limitations as claim 1 set forth as instructions stored on a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium causing a computer to perform the recited functions. See Sasayama at [0049] and [0052]. The prior art applied to reject claim 1 therefore reads on the functions recited in claim 14 for the same reasons. The motivation to combine Sasayama, Wan, and Fabry is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly added limitation requiring the suppression control unit to display the suppression display on the basis of an attitude of the conveyance, Applicant has not presented any argument that the prior art of record fails to teach this limitation. Nevertheless, Sasayama teaches this limitation. Sasayama discloses that the current condition information generation unit 120 calculates "a rotation direction represented by roll, pitch and yaw, a rotation direction with reference to a different rotation axis, a frequency, an angular speed, amplitude, and the like." See Sasayama at [0058]. Roll, pitch, and yaw are the components of vehicle attitude as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Sasayama expressly identifies the rotation cases that trigger display of the motion sickness prevention information as including "a case where the automobile travels on an uneven road, a case where the automobile travels while leaning to the left or right." See Sasayama at [0061]. Sasayama further teaches that information "regarding roll, pitch and yaw has been associated with the first place included in the route information. The prediction information generation unit 130 generates the prediction information by using the information regarding roll, pitch and yaw." See Sasayama at [0063]. Sasayama at [0091] expressly ties the displayed suppression information to the attitude of the vehicle: "in a case where the automobile moves upward at a future time on an uneven road, the control unit 150 makes the display device display the motion sickness prevention information moving from bottom to top. In a case where the automobile moves downward at a future time on an uneven road, the control unit 150 makes the display device display the motion sickness prevention information moving from top to bottom." Accordingly, Sasayama teaches displaying the suppression display on the basis of an attitude of the conveyance.
Regarding Applicant's argument that Fabry does not teach that the contrast of the viewing target decreases as the degree of motion sickness becomes worse, this argument is not persuasive because it is contradicted by the disclosure of Fabry that Applicant reproduced in the response. In the passage of Fabry at [0060] reproduced at pages 6 and 7 of Applicant's response, Fabry expressly states: "The displayed video imagery may be responsive to measured or reported severity of motion sickness symptoms." Applicant reproduced this sentence but did not address it. This sentence directly establishes that the displayed suppression imagery in Fabry is responsive to the severity, that is the degree, of the passenger's motion sickness. Applicant's characterization that Fabry displays the motion simulation only "in accordance with the user's movement" addresses a portion of [0060] while omitting the express severity responsive teaching contained in the same paragraph.
Fabry further expressly teaches that the viewing target content, identified as including text, apps, games, images, videos, and webpages, is "overlaid/superimposed with a degree of opacity over top of the pictured video or animation simulation," with exemplary opacity values ranging from about 5% to about 95%, and that "the opacity of the overlay may be dynamically adapted by one or more components of the system and/or control circuitry thereof." See Fabry at [0060]. Applicant likewise reproduced this language without addressing it. Reading the teachings of [0060] together as required, namely variable opacity between the suppression display and the viewing target, dynamic adaptation of that opacity by the system, and responsiveness of the displayed imagery to measured or reported motion sickness severity, Fabry teaches that the contrast of the viewing target decreases as the degree of motion sickness becomes worse.
Regarding Applicant's argument that "such combination cannot achieve the configuration of the presently amended claim 1," this argument is conclusory and does not identify any specific limitation that the combination fails to teach. Moreover, Applicant's argument is directed to Fabry individually rather than to the combination of Sasayama, Wan, and Fabry as applied. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Applicant relies on the same arguments presented with respect to claim 1. Those arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding dependent claims 2 through 9 and 11, Applicant has not presented separate arguments for the patentability of these claims apart from their dependency on claim 1. These claims therefore stand or fall with claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights