Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary
`
`Application
`No.
`16/069,577
`Examiner
`ISTIAQU E
`AHMED
`
`Yes
`
`Applicant(s)
`FU NADA et al.
`
`NA (First Inventor
`to File) Status
`
`All participants (applicant, applicants representative, PTO personnel):
`
`1. ISTIAQUE AHMED (Examiner); Telephonic
`
`2. Nobuhiko Sukenaga (Attorney); Telephonic
`
`Date of Interview: 05 March 2020
`
`Claims Discussed: Claim 1
`
`Prior Art Discussed: Kaneko (Japanese Patent application JP2010165331A) and MOTODANI et. al. (US PG
`PUB No. US 2018/0128511A1)
`
`Amendment proposed: Applicant proposed amendments to the claims to overcome the current 112f
`interpretation and 103 rejections
`
`Brief Description of the main topic(s) of discussion: Applicant's representative and examiner discussed
`the proposed amended claim in view of the current rejections.
`
`Issues Discussed:
`
`Proposed Amendments:
`Examiner and applicant's representative discussed the proposed amendment to the claim in view of the current
`rejections. Examiner notified the applicant's representative that amended claim limitation regarding, "the
`information on the target total exhaust volume set by user including information on a predetermined time for
`exhaustion and information on the volume of exhaust that should be discharged from the building within the
`predetermined time." appears to overcome the current rejection however further search and consideration will
`be needed for these limitations to decide on allowability. For 112f examiner notified applicant that "ventilation
`controller", "ventilation transmitter/receiver", "broadband transmitter/receiver" appears to overcome 112f.
`However further consideration will be needed regarding deterrninator and a control determinator. Examiner
`called and left a voicemail on 03/09/2020 notifying applicant's representative that deterrninator and a control
`deterrninator will still be interpreted under 112f. Examiner also advised the applicant to further amend the claim
`to recite the controller performing the functions of the deterrninator and control deterrninator, which may help
`with overcoming the 112f. No agreement was reached.
`
`Attachment(s): Agenda, Proposed Amendments,
`
`

`

`/|STIAQUE AHMED/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2116
`
`IKENNETH M LO/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
`
`Applicant is reminded that a complete written statement as to the substance of the interview must be made of record in
`the application file. It is the applicants responsibility to provide the written statement, unless the interview was initiated
`by the Examiner and the Examiner has indicated that a written summary will be provided. See MPEP 713.04
`Please further see:
`MPEP 713.04
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews, paragraph (b)
`
`37 CFR § 1.2 Business to be transacted in writing
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413/413b (Rev. 01/01/2015)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20200309
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance
`of the interview. (See MPEP section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, applicant is
`given a non-extendable period of the longer of one month or thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing
`date of this interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substance of the interview.
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substance of any interview of record. A
`complete and proper recordation of the substance of an interview should include the items listed in MPEP 713.04
`for complete and proper recordation including the identification of the general thrust of each argument or issue
`discussed, a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the general
`results or outcome of the interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the
`issues raised.
`
`