`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`13/813,199
`
`01/30/2013
`
`Taichi Kadono
`
`MAT—10583US
`
`4618
`
`RATNERPRESTIA
`PO. BOX 980
`VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482-0980
`
`ZOLLINGER, NATHAN c
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3746
`
`PAPER NUIVIBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/02/2015
`
`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):
`
`ptocorrespondence @ratnerprestia.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Advisory Action
`Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Application No.
`13/813, 199
`Examiner
`NATHAN ZOLLINGER
`
`Applicant(s)
`KADONO ET AL.
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File) Status
`3746
`No
`
`--The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`THE REPLY FILED 26 May 2015 FAILS TO PLACE THIS APPLICATION IN CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE.
`NO NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED
`
`1. E 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:
`months from the mailing date of the final rejection.
`a) D The period for reply expires
`b)
`IXI 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.
`C) 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. D 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. D The proposed amendments filed after a final rejection, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will n_ot be entered because
`a) D They raise new issues that would require further consideration and/or search (see NOTE below);
`b) D They raise the issue of new matter (see NOTE below);
`c) D 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) D They present additional claims without canceling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims.
`NOTE:
`. (See 37 CFR 1.116 and 41 .33( )).
`4. D The amendments are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121. See attached Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (PTOL-324).
`5. D Applicant’s reply has overcome the following rejection(s):
`6. D Newly proposed or amended claim(s) _would be allowable if submitted in a separate, timely filed amendment canceling the non-
`allowable claim( ).
`7. D For purposes of appeal, the proposed amendment(s): (a) [I 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. D A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`9. [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( ).
`10. [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_|| 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).
`1 1. [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
`
`12. IX The request for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the application in condition for allowance because:
`See Continuation Sheet.
`
`
`
`13. El Note the attached Information Disclosure Statement(s). (PTO/SB/08) Paper No( ).
`14. El Other:
`.
`STATUS OF CLAIMS
`
`15. The status of the claim(s) is (or will be) as follows:
`Claim(s) allowed:
`Claim(s) objected to:
`Claim(s) rejected: 1-2.
`Claim(s) withdrawn from consideration:
`
`/DEVON KRAMER/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-303 (Rev. 08-2013)
`
`/NATHAN ZOLLINGER/
`Examiner, Art Unit 3746
`
`Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Part of Paper No. 20150527
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-303)
`
`Application No. 13/813,199
`
`Continuation of 12. does NOT place the application in condition for allowance because: Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant‘s
`arguments. Applicant lays out 3 deficiencies of Sumino, two of which are handled by Nakamura and will be discussed further below. The
`remaining deficiency, Applicant points out, is that the sidewalls have a start point that correspond to a central axis of the roll pin and
`Sumino does not disclose this feature. Examiner disagrees by pointing out that "start point" has no explicit special meaning in Applicant‘s
`disclosure other than corresponding to the central axis of the roll pin.
`Interpreted broadly, then, Examiner is justified in choosing a "start
`point" on the side wall so long as that point corresponds to the central axis and could be considered as a starting point along the wall based
`from the central axis. Next, with regard to the other deficiencies of Sumino, Applicant argues against using Nakamura in that (a) Nakamura
`is silent about a distance between the sidewalls being equal to the diameter of the roll pin and (b) that Nakamura teaches away from using
`sidewalls spaced at a distance equal to the roll pin. With regard to the spacing, Examiner views Figure 5 in Nakamara in much the same
`way one would see a key adjacent a keyhole. One fits snugly within the other for turning purposes. There is no need for explicit
`instructions to the effect that the width of the key equals the slot for the key; otherwise, the turning effectiveness would be greatly
`comprimised. As such, Examiner believes no further explanation is needed with regard to the wall portion spacing. With regard to
`teaching away, Examiner notes the common teaching in both Figure 5 and Nakamura‘s other embodiments is that both possess slots
`having straight wall portions.
`|f Applicant insists that the added washer of Nakamura poisons the usage of Figure 5 in Nakamara, Examiner
`will then consider Applicant‘s admitted prior art of Fig. 5, depicting the same image, and will note the embodiments alongside this image
`that have no washers; Figure 5 and Applicant‘s embodiments both possess straight wall portions into which to fit the roll pin with no
`additional structures. To sum up, Examiner believes the slot spacing is self evident , that parallel straight wall portions underly old and new
`embodiements and that alternative avenues are present to further mitigate any teaching away issues.
`
`