`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`11/691,591
`
`03/27/2007
`
`Hidekazu Sueyoshi
`
`P31897
`
`5928
`
`7055
`7590
`09/08/2009
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
`1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
`RESTON, VA 20191
`
`EXAMINER
`MCEVOY, THOMAS M
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3731
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`
`
`
`
` NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/08/2009
`
`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):
`
`gbpatent @ gbpatent.c0m
`pto @ gbpatent.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Advisory Action
`Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`11/691,591
`Examiner
`THOMAS MCEVOY
`
`SUEYOSHI ET AL.
`Art Unit
`3731
`
`--The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`THE REPLY FILED 17 August 2009 FAILS TO PLACE THIS APPLICATION IN CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE.
`1. X The reply was filed after a final rejection, but prior to or on the same day as filing a Notice of Appeal. To avoid abandonment of this
`application, applicant must timely file one of the following replies: (1) an amendment, affidavit, or other evidence, which places the
`application in condition for allowance; (2) a Notice of Appeal (with appeal fee) in compliance with 37 CFR 41.31; or (3) a Request
`for Continued Examination (RCE) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114. The reply must be filed within one of the following time
`periods:
`months from the mailing date of the final rejection.
`a) D The period for reply expires
`b)
`IZI The period for reply expires on: (1) the mailing date of this Advisory Action, or (2) the date set forth in the final rejection, whichever is later.
`no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final rejection.
`Examiner Note: If box 1 is checked, check either box (a) or (b). ONLY CHECK BOX (b) WHEN THE FIRST REPLY WAS FILED WITHIN TWO
`MONTHS OF THE FINAL REJECTION. See MPEP 706.07(f).
`Extensions of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). The date on which the petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) and the appropriate extension fee
`have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. The appropriate extension fee
`under 37 CFR 1.17(a) is calculated from: (1) the expiration date of the shortened statutory period for reply originally set in the final Office action; or (2) as
`set forth in (b) above, if checked. Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of the final rejection, even if timely filed,
`may reduce any earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`In
`
`. A brief in compliance with 37 CFR 41.37 must be filed within two months of the date of
`2. [I The Notice of Appeal was filed on
`filing the Notice of Appeal (37 CFR 41 _37(a)), or any extension thereof (37 CFR 41 .37(e)), to avoid dismissal ofthe appeal. Since a
`Notice of Appeal has been filed, any reply must be filed within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 41 .37(a).
`AMENDMENTS
`
`3. [I The proposed amendment(s) filed after a final rejection, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will n_ot be entered because
`(a)I:I They raise new issues that would require further consideration and/or search (see NOTE below);
`(b)I:I They raise the issue of new matter (see NOTE below);
`(0) [I They are not deemed to place the application in better form for appeal by materially reducing or simplifying the issues for
`appeal; and/or
`(d)I:I They present additional claims without canceling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims.
`NOTE:
`. (See 37 CFR 1.116 and 41.33(a)).
`4. [I The amendments are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121. See attached Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (PTOL-324).
`5. IX Applicant’s reply has overcome the following rejection(s): The previous 35 U.S.C. 112 1St re'ection of record.
`6. El Newly proposed or amended claim(s)
`would be allowable if submitted in a separate, timely filed amendment canceling the
`non-allowable claim(s).
`7. IX For purposes of appeal, the proposed amendment(s): a) I] will not be entered, or b) IE will be entered and an explanation of
`how the new or amended claims would be rejected is provided below or appended.
`The status of the claim(s) is (or will be) as follows:
`Claim(s) allowed:
`Claim(s) objected to:
`Claim(s) rejected: fl.
`Claim(s) withdrawn from consideration:
`AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER EVIDENCE
`
`8. D The affidavit or other evidence filed after a final action, but before or on the date of filing a Notice of Appeal will n_ot be entered
`because applicant failed to provide a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and
`was not earlier presented. See 37 CFR 1.116(e).
`9. D The affidavit or other evidence filed after the date of filing a Notice of Appeal, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will n_ot be
`entered because the affidavit or other evidence failed to overcome a_H rejections under appeal and/or appellant fails to provide a
`showing a good and sufficient reasons why it is necessary and was not earlier presented. See 37 CFR 41 .33(d)(1 ).
`10. D The affidavit or other evidence is entered. An explanation of the status of the claims after entry is below or attached.
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION/OTHER
`
`11. IX The request for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the application in condition for allowance because:
`See Continuation Sheet.
`
`
`
`12. El Note the attached Information Disclosure Statement(s). (PTO/SB/O8) Paper No(s).
`13. I] Other:
`
`/Anhtuan T. Nguyen/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
`
`/Thomas Mcevoy/
`Examiner, Art Unit 3731
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-303 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Part of Paper No. 20090830
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTO-303)
`
`Application No. 11/691,591
`
`Continuation of 11. does NOT place the application in condition for allowance because: After further consideration, Examiner has
`withdrawn the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 1st rejection of record. After careful review of Applicants drawings and claim language, Examiner
`believes that the button serves no more ofa purpose than a gripping protrusion, but in a broad sense, a gripping protrusion could be
`considered as a button. Examiner notes that aperture 30 is drawn grossly undersized in the vertical dimension.
`
`Applicant's amendment to the drawings overcomes the previous objection of record to the drawings.
`
`Applicant has argued that Floessholzer does not disclose a wiper as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees and believes that member
`9A and other edges of member 9 are capable of performing wiping functions as claimed. Applicant has argued, in regard to Sueyoshi et al.,
`that members 202 and 261 cannot function as the claimed engagement hooks or projections because they do not move relative to another
`hook or projection, such as member 203 or 262; presumably implying that no 'sequential engagement' could take place between a hook,
`projection and button as claimed. Examiner believes that the button 7 can indirectly move or engage members 202 and 261 (Examiner
`notes that Applicant's button only indirectly engages the claimed hooks and projections) and then afterwards (or sequentially) move or
`engage its corresponding hook or projection (members 262 and 203 respectively) because as seen when comparing figures 9, 12 and 14,
`members 26 and 20 can move relative to eachother. Examiner believes that several other hooks or projections and corresponding hooks
`or projections can be found within the lifting plate mechanism of Sueyoshi et al. as well. Examiner notes that either member 26 or 20 of
`Sueyoshi et al. can be considered as the lifting plate or part of the head frame as claimed, where each can perform as the claimed wiper.
`Applicant has argued that Examiner's combination of Floessholzer with Sueyoshi et al. is improper and one of ordinary skill in the art would
`not be motivated to make such a combintation. Examiner believes that at least since Floessholzer suggests using a hair lifting mechanism,
`the combination is proper.
`
`Given the above response to Applicant's arguments, the pending claims are rejected as previously made of record.
`
`