Application No. 13/605,856
`Reply to Office Action dated March 26, 2015
`
`Amendments to the Drawings:
`
`The attached sheets of drawings include changes to Figures 2, 6 and 10. These
`
`sheets, Which include Figures 2, 6, 9 and 10, replace the original sheets including Figures 2, 6, 9
`
`and 10.
`
`Attachment: Replacement Sheets
`
`

`

`Application No. 13/605,856
`Reply to Office Action dated March 26, 2015
`
`REMARKS
`
`This is a Response to the Office Action mailed March 26, 2015, in which a three
`
`(3) month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set, due to expire June 26, 2015.
`
`Eight (8) claims,
`
`including two (2) independent claims, were paid for in the application.
`
`Claims 1-3, 5 and 8 have been amended. Support for the amendments to claims 1 and 2 is found
`
`at paragraphs [0022] and [0106] and Figure 17 of the published application. Claims 3, 5 and 8
`
`are amended to address 112 issues. No new matter has been added to the application by these
`
`amendments. The Director is authorized to charge any additional fees due by way of this
`
`Amendment, or credit any overpayment, to our Deposit Account No. 19-1090. Claims 1-8 are
`
`pending.
`
`Objection to Drawings
`
`The Office Action objects to the drawings for reasons a-d set out on page 2 of the
`
`Office Action.
`
`a.
`
`“Printing circuit board” recited in claims 3 and 6 is identified in Fig. 2 by
`
`reference numeral 91; thus, no amendment of the drawings or cancelation of
`
`the feature from the claims is necessary.
`
`b. Fig. 2 and 6 have been amended to remove use of reference numeral 43 to
`
`identify door, receiver member and slide rails. In the amended Fig. 2, receiver
`
`member is identified by reference numeral 42.
`
`In amended Fig. 6, slide rails
`
`are identified by reference numeral 143.
`
`c. Fig. 10 has been amended change reference number 7B used to identify drop
`
`passageway to reference numeral 17B.
`
`The specification has also been
`
`amended to refer to the drop passageway using reference numeral 17B.
`
`Obiection t0 Sgecittcation
`
`The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
`
`In [0042], “an supplemental medium” should be “a supplemental medium.”
`
`Appropriate correction is required. No new matter should be added.
`
`

`

`Application No. 13/605,856
`Reply to Office Action dated March 26, 2015
`
`Applicant has amended the specification as suggested in the Office Action.
`
`Withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.
`
`The substitute specification enclosed herein contains no new matter.
`
`35 U.S.C. §112Reiecti0ns
`
`Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §ll2 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as
`
`being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
`
`Applicants regard as the invention. For the following reasons, Applicants respectfully traverse
`
`this rejection.
`
`Claims 1 and 2 have been amended to provide antecedent basis for “the back-and-
`
`forth direction.”
`
`Claim 3 has been amended to provide antecedent basis for “the printing circuit
`
`board.”
`
`Claims 5 and 8 have been amended to remove the “such as” language.
`
`In view of these amendments, withdrawal of this 35 U.S.C. §ll2 (pre-AIA),
`
`second paragraph rejection of claims 1-8 is respectfully requested.
`
`35 US. C. §I03(a2 Reiections
`
`Claims 1 2 3 and 6
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over US. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0230710 to Ishiwatari et al.
`
`(hereinafter “Ishiwatari”) in view of US. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0175352 to
`
`Soloman (hereinafter “Soloman”). For the following reasons, Applicants respectfully traverse
`
`this rejection.
`
`A prima facie case of obviousness may be established under §103 if “all the
`
`claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the
`
`elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective filnctions, and the
`
`combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc, 550 US. 398 (2007); M.P.E.P. §2l43.A.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Application No. 13/605,856
`Reply to Office Action dated March 26, 2015
`
`Embodiments of the claimed subject matter allow the solid preparation packaging
`
`mechanism unit to be smoothly pulled out or pushed back with protection of electrical wiring
`
`connected to the solid preparation packaging mechanism. One benefit of the ability to pull out
`
`and push back the solid preparation packaging mechanism unit
`
`is that electrical wiring
`
`connecting the electrical component chamber and the solid preparation packaging mechanism
`
`unit can be inspected and repaired with ease because the flexible wiring cover portion can be
`
`visually checked when the solid preparation packaging mechanism unit is drawn out.
`
`Regarding claim 1, the Office Action at page 5 asserts that Ishiwatari teaches “a
`
`flexible wiring cover (Fig. 3 #48) which is continually curved as the solid preparation packaging
`
`mechanism unit is pulled out of or pushed back into the main body is mounted across the
`
`electrical component chamber and the solid preparation packaging mechanism unit in order to
`
`pass, through the flexible wiring cover, wiring of the solid preparation packaging mechanism
`
`unit to the central processing unit circuit board and the power supply (Fig. 3 #48 and para
`
`0123)”.
`
`Applicants respectfully disagree and assert Ishiwatari fails to teach the feature of a
`
`flexible wiring cover recited in claims 1 and 2.
`
`In Ishiwatari, harness 48 in Fig. 3 is not a
`
`flexible wiring cover that covers wiring. Harness 48 in Fig. 3 of Ishiwatari is for a packaging
`
`machine 13 that is detachably connected by connectors between the packaging machine 13 and a
`
`lower structure 7B. See paragraph [0123] of Ishiwatari. Fig. 3 of Ishiwatari illustrates harness
`
`48 as a mechanical connection between packaging machine 13 and lower structure 7B.
`
`Ishiwatari does not describe that harness 48 is wiring or a wiring cover for wiring. Therefore,
`
`Ishiwatari does not describe a flexible wiring cover and wiring as recited in claims 1 and 2.
`
`Solomon does not provide the description of the recited wiring and flexible wiring cover that is
`
`missing from Ishiwatari. For at least the foregoing reasons, Ishiwatari alone or in view of
`
`Solomon does not describe each and every feature recited in claims 1 and 2. Accordingly,
`
`Applicants respectfully request withdrawal of this outstanding rejection of claims 1 and 2.
`
`Claims 3 and 6 depend from either independent claim 1 or independent claim 2;
`
`thus, claims 3 and 6 include each of the limitations of their respective base claim.
`
`If the
`
`respective base claim of dependent claims 3 and 6 are not obvious over Ishiwatari in view of
`
`11
`
`

`

`Application No. 13/605,856
`Reply to Office Action dated March 26, 2015
`
`Solomon, then claims 3 and 6 are not obvious over Ishiwatari in view of Solomon for at least the
`
`same reasons as claims 1 and 2. Therefore, Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection of
`
`claims 3 and 6 based on the recitations in amended claims 1 and 2.
`
`Claims4 and7
`
`Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over
`
`Ishiwatari
`
`in view of Soloman and in fiarther view of US. Patent
`
`No. 2,661,884 to Lawrence et al.
`
`(hereinafter “Lawrence”).
`
`For the following reasons,
`
`Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.
`
`Claims 4 and 7 depend from either independent claim 1 or independent claim 2;
`
`thus, claims 4 and 7 include each of the limitations of their respective base claim.
`
`If the
`
`respective base claim of dependent claims 4 and 7 are not obvious over Ishiwatari in view of
`
`Solomon and further in view of Lawrence, then claims 4 and 7 are not obvious over Ishiwatari in
`
`view of Solomon and filrther in view of Lawrence for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 2.
`
`Lawrence is not relied up in rejecting claims 1 and 2. Therefore, Applicants respectfully traverse
`
`this rejection of claims 4 and 7 based on the recitations in amended claims 1 and 2.
`
`Claims 5 and 8
`
`Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Ishiwatari in view of Soloman and in fiarther view of JP10118159 to Kazuji
`
`(hereinafter “Kazuji”). For the following reasons, Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.
`
`Claims 5 and 8 depend from either independent claim 1 or independent claim 2;
`
`thus, claims 5 and 8 include each of the limitations of their respective base claim.
`
`If the
`
`respective base claim of dependent claims 5 and 8 are not obvious over Ishiwatari in view of
`
`Solomon and fiarther in view of Kazuji, then claims 4 and 7 are not obvious over Ishiwatari in
`
`view of Solomon and fiarther in view of Kazuji for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 2.
`
`Kazuji is not relied up in rejecting claims 1 and 2. Therefore, Applicants respectfully traverse
`
`this rejection of claims 5 and 8 based on the recitations in amended claims 1 and 2.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Application No. 13/605,856
`Reply to Office Action dated March 26, 2015
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicants respectfully submit
`
`that
`
`the pending claims are in condition for
`
`allowance. Any remarks in support of patentability of one claim should not be imputed to any
`
`other claim, even if similar terminology is used. Any remarks referring to only a portion of a
`
`claim should not be understood to base patentability on that portion; rather, patentability must
`
`rest on each claim taken as a whole. A number of clarifying amendments have also been made
`
`to the above claim set. Applicants do not acquiesce to each of the Examiner’s rejections and to
`
`each of the Examiner’s assertions regarding what the cited references show or teach, even if not
`
`expressly discussed herein. Although changes to the claims have been made, no acquiescence or
`
`estoppel
`
`is or should be implied thereby; such amendments are made only to expedite
`
`prosecution of the present application and are without prejudice to the presentation or assertion,
`
`in the future, of claims relating to the same or similar subject matter.
`
`If the undersigned attorney has overlooked a relevant teaching in any of the
`
`references, the Examiner is requested to point out specifically where such teaching may be
`
`found.
`
`In light of the above amendments and remarks, Applicants respectfully submit that all
`
`pending claims are allowable. Applicants, therefore, respectfully request that the Examiner
`
`reconsider this application and timely allow all pending claims. The Examiner is encouraged to
`
`contact the undersigned by telephone to discuss the above and any other distinctions between the
`
`claims and the applied references, if desired.
`
`If the Examiner notes any informality in the
`
`claims, the Examiner is encouraged to contact the undersigned by telephone to expediently
`
`correct such informality.
`
`The Director is authorized to charge any additional fees due by way of this
`
`Amendment, or credit any overpayment, to our Deposit Account No. 19-1090.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Application No. 13/605,856
`Reply to Office Action dated March 26, 2015
`
`All of the claims remaining in the application are now clearly allowable.
`
`Favorable consideration and a Notice of Allowance are earnestly solicited.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SEED Intellectual Property Law Group PLLC
`
`/Jeff Sakoi/
`
`Jeffrey M. Sakoi
`Registration No. 32,059
`
`JS:ms
`
`Enclosures:
`
`3 Sheets of Replacement Drawings (Figures 2, 6 and 9-10)
`Redlined Substitute Specification
`Substitute Specification
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7092
`Phone: (206) 622-4900
`Fax: (206) 682-6031
`
`394734171.doc
`
`14
`
`