www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/718,910
`
`12/18/2019
`
`Isao Fujiwara
`
`P191327US00
`
`T7247
`
`WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
`8500 LEESBURG PIKE
`SUITE 7500
`TYSONS, VA 22182
`
`BERMUDEZ, CHARLENE
`
`ART UNIT
`1721
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/14/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`patentmail @ whda.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Applicant-InitiatedInterview Summary
`
`Application No.
`16/718,910
`Examiner
`CHARLENE
`BERMUDEZ
`
`Applicant(s)
`Fujiwaraetal.
`AIA (First Inventor
`to File) Status
`Yes
`
`
`
`[DUSTINDAMsdPrimaryExaminer|
`
`
`
`[MichaelCaridi_CdAttorneyofRecord|
`
`[FumikaOgawaCdPatentAgent|
`
`Date of Interview: 11 January 2022
`
`Issues Discussed:
`
`Proposed Amendments)
`
`Applicant wanted to discussif the Office had any feedback about the currently filed amendments in
`which were substantial for claim 1, and includes new claim 10. The examiner had specific questions
`about the identification of the elements included in the substantial amendment for claim 1 and the new
`limitations from claim 10, for purposesofclarity. Applicant responded bypointing out the elementsin Fig.
`1 of the drawings, and showing the sufficient support for the amendment provided by [0021]-[0022]. The
`applicant essentially cleared up the lack of understanding that the examinerinitially had about the
`amendment. Lastly, the examiner indicated that the prior art of record (Suzuki) remains to read upon the
`limitation of canceled claim 8, which is now incorporatedinto claim 1 asits last limitation. The interview
`concluded with a better understanding from both sides about the substantial amendments.
`
`/CHARLENE BERMUDEZ/
`Examiner, Art Unit 1721
`
`/DUSTIN Q DAM/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
`
`37 CFR§ 1.2 Businessto be transacted in writing
`
`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 wasinitiated
`by the Examiner and the Examiner hasindicated that a written summarywill be provided. See MPEP 713.04
`Pleasefurther see:
`MPEP 713.04
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews, paragraph (b)
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substanceof 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 monthor thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this
`interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substanceofthe interview.
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substanceof any interview of record. A complete
`and proper recordation of the substance of an interview should include the itemslisted in MPEP 713.04 for complete
`and proper recordation including the identification of the general thrust of each argumentor 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 issuesraised.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413/41 3b (Rev. Oct. 2019)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20220111
`
`