`
`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
`wwwnsptogov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`12/442,815
`
`03/25/2009
`
`Makoto Sugiyama
`
`MAT— 10271US
`
`4006
`
`EXAMINER
`RATNERPRESTIA —
`mm —
`7590
`52473
`PO. BOX 980
`SOULE, IANB
`VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`37 85
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`04/13/2012
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Advisory Action
`Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Application No.
`12/442,815
`Examiner
`IAN SOULE
`
`Applicant(s)
`SUGIYAMA ET AL.
`Art Unit
`3785
`
`--The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`THE REPLY FILED 30 March 2012 FAILS TO PLACE THIS APPLICATION IN CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE.
`NO NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED
`
`1. XI The reply was filed after a final rejection. No Notice of Appeal has been filed. 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 if this is a utility or plant application. Note that RCEs are not permitted in design applications. The reply must be filed within one of
`the following time periods:
`a) IX The period for reply expires gmonths from the mailing date of the final rejection.
`b) I] 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.
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final rejection.
`0) D A prior Advisory Action was mailed more than 3 months after the mailing date of the final rejection in response to a first after-final reply filed
`within 2 months of the mailing date of the final rejection. The current period for reply expires
`months from the mailing date of
`the prior Advisory Action or SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final rejection, whichever is earlier.
`Examiner Note: If box 1 is checked, check either box (
`), (b) or (c). ONLY CHECK BOX (b) WHEN THIS ADVISORY ACTION IS THE
`FIRST RESPONSE TO APPLICANT‘S FIRST AFTER-FINAL REPLY WHICH WAS FILED WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF THE FINAL
`REJECTION. ONLY CHECK BOX (c) IN THE LIMITED SITUATION SET FORTH UNDER BOX (c). 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) or (0) 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
`
`. A brief in compliance with 37 CFR 41.37 must be filed within two months of the date of filing the
`2. [I The Notice of Appeal was filed on
`Notice of Appeal (37 CFR 41 .37(a)), or any extension thereof (37 CFR 41 .37(e)), to avoid dismissal of the 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( ).
`AMENDMENTS
`
`3. E The proposed amendments filed after a final rejection, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will n_ot be entered because
`a) E They raise new issues that would require further consideration and/or search (see NOTE below);
`b) [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 They present additional claims without canceling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims.
`NOTE: _. (See 37 CFR 1.116 and 41.33( )).
`4. [I The amendments are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121. See attached Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (PTOL-324).
`5. El Applicant’s reply has overcome the following rejection(s):
`6. El Newly proposed or amended claim(s) _would be allowable if submitted in a separate, timely filed amendment canceling the non-
`allowable claim( ).
`7. IX For purposes of appeal, the proposed amendment(s): (a) E will not be entered, or (b) I] will be entered, and an explanation of how the
`new or amended claims would be rejected is provided below or appended.
`AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER EVIDENCE
`
`8. I] The affidavit or other evidence filed after 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( ).
`9. I] The affidavit or other evidence filed after the date of filing the 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 of good
`and sufficient reasons why it is necessary and was not earlier presented. See 37 CFR 41 .33(d)(1).
`10. I] 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. IX Note the attached Information Disclosure Statement(s). (PTO/SB/08) Paper No(s). 3/30/2012
`13. El Other:
`.
`TATUS OF CLAIMS
`
`14. The status of the claim(s) is (or will be) as follows:
`Claim(s) allowed:
`.
`Claim(s) objected to:
`Claim(s) rejected: 1-21, 22-24.
`Claim(s) withdrawn from consideration:
`
`/HENRY YUEN/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3742
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-303 (Rev. 09-2010)
`
`/I. S./
`Examiner, Art Unit 3785
`
`Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Part of Paper No. 20120411
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-303)
`
`Application No. 12/442,815
`
`Continuation of 11. does NOT place the application in condition for allowance because:
`
`Applicant‘s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 3/30/2011, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered
`and are not persuasive. Applicant has not responded to each of the issues outlined in the Final Rejection. With the exception of the
`deletion of the language "for adjusting ventilation resistances of the flow channels", the 35 U.S.C. 112 (2) issues remain pending.
`
`Applicant believes that the newly added limitation "each of the rectification portions is a bended portion of the corresponding one of the flow
`channel division portions, and the bended portion is located in a vicinity of the corresponding one of the inlet ports and the corresponding
`one of the outlet ports, respectively" distinguishes over Matsushita. At first glance, this feature may distinguish over the 102(b) rejection
`using Matsushita alone. However, as this is similar limitation to claim 22, which was Finally Rejected with Matsushita in view of Shah,
`applicant appears to have failed to structurally overcome all rejections and prior art of record, and further search and consideration would
`be required to reach a determination.
`It is noted that Applicant has failed to respond to this rejection.
`
`Applicant argues (page 11) w.r.t. claims 7-9 using Matsushita with Shah and Daikin, neither of the combined references make up for the
`deficiencies for Matsushita. However, applicant gives no reasoning and this amounts to a general allegation of patentability.
`
`Applicant argues (id.) that Examiner has used Figures which appear in the Matsushita patent as prohibited by MPEP 2125. This is not
`persuasive. MPEP 2125 is unambiguous in this regard: "[Tjhe description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the
`drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977)".
`That is, Examiner has correctly relied upon the drawings in both the 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the previous action.
`
`Claims 23-24 now in independent form and remaining dependent claims require further search and consideration.
`
`Applicant‘s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.1 1 1 (b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable
`invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
`
`Applicant‘s arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she
`thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show
`how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
`
`In response to applicants 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)..
`
`