Application No. 14/394528
`Reply to Action dated 06/13/2017
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration of this application.
`
`Claims 10 and 20 have been revised, and they are supported by, for example, Figs. 2 and
`
`4 and their descriptions in the Specification. There is no new matter. Claims 10-12, 15, and 18-
`
`32 are pending, with claims 18, 19, and 24-31 being withdrawn. With the allowance of linking
`
`claims, Applicant respectfully requests rejoinder and allowance of the withdrawn claims.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 10-12 and 15 were rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Myles et al. (US 8236254) in view of Chatelier (US 2009/0084687), Baba (JP
`
`201 1/ 1 17912) and Lee (US 7387204). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
`
`Regarding claim 10, the claim is directed towards a sensor storage container for holding
`
`flat sensors. The sensor storage container includes a bottomed cylindrical container body, an
`
`opening/closing lid, a hinge portion, a bottomed inner case, a linking body and a plurality of
`
`sensors. The sensors are stored in a direction parallel to the hinge portion in the inner case. The
`
`end of the sensor on the bottom face side of the inner case is thinner than the end of the sensor on
`
`the opening side of the inner case in a state of being stored in the inner case.
`
`Furthermore, when the lip disposed on an opposite side with respect to the hinge portion
`
`on the opening/closing lid is opened further by the fingers and the upper end of the inner case is
`
`moving up gradually to the opening of the container body, the opening/closing lid enters its
`
`completely open state with respect to the container body. At this time, the upper ends of the
`
`sensor protrudes above the top face opening of the container body since the inner case is pulled
`
`up by the linking body and moves upward within the container body.
`
`Also at this time, in a state in which the opening/closing lid is open and the inner case has
`
`risen up through the container body, the upper ends of the sensors protrudes above the opening
`
`of the container body and are spread apart more than the lower ends and reach to the peripheral
`
`edge of the opening of the inner case.
`
`Accordingly, this allows a user to easily grasp the portion of one sensor of the upper end
`
`side, and remove that sensor.
`
`In addition, the sensor storage container of the present invention includes a sloped side
`
`face to adjust a space at the lower end side of the sensors. Accordingly, the sensor faces of the
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/394528
`Reply to Action dated 06/13/2017
`
`sensors are positioned to be sloped in a direction of the hinge portion before the inner case has
`
`risen up. Therefore, the sloped side face is provided to adjust the state in which the sensors are
`
`held when the inner case is risen up, so in a state in which the opening/closing lid is open and the
`
`inner case has risen up through the container body, the upper ends of the sensors are spread apart
`
`further more than the lower ends. That is, for example, the sloped side face is provided so that
`
`the sensors disposed on an opposite side of the linking body are supported in a state of being
`
`inclined toward the lip side with respect to the vertical direction.
`
`These features and advantages are not taught or suggested by the cited art. Myles et al.
`
`teaches a test strip carrier which includes a test strip vial 109, a cap 110, a flange 115, a test
`
`carrier 100 (inner case), a flexible connector 105. In Myles et al., the test carrier 100 houses a
`
`plurality of the test strips 120, and the test carrier 100 is pulled up when the cap 110 is opened.
`
`However, Myles fails to teach or suggest that the sensors are stored in a direction parallel to the
`
`hinge portion in the inner case, and the sloped side face to adjust the state in which the sensors
`
`are held, so in a state in which the opening/closing lid is open and the inner case has risen up
`
`through the container body, upper ends of the sensors are spread apart more than the lower ends
`
`and reach to the peripheral edge of the opening of the inner case in a state in which the
`
`opening/closing lid is opened and the inner case is risen up through the container body.
`
`These deficiencies of Myles et al. are not remedied by Chatelier. That is, Chatelier fails to
`
`teach or suggest an inner case which is provided and the sloped portion and the step portion are
`
`provided to the container and the sensors are stored in a direction parallel to the hinge portion in
`
`the inner case, and a sloped side face provided to adjust the state in which the sensors are held,
`
`so in a state in which the opening/closing lid is open and the inner case has risen up through the
`
`container body, upper ends of the sensors are spread apart more than the lower ends and reach to
`
`the peripheral edge of the opening of the inner case in a state in which the opening/closing lid is
`
`opened and the inner case is risen up through the container body.
`
`Baba also fails to remedy the above-stated deficiencies of the cited art.
`
`Further, Lee is directed towards a cosmetic brush container for a brush, a knob, a lid, a
`
`rod, a cylindrical sidewall and a tray, wherein multiple brushes are disposed on the tray and the
`
`tray rises according to the operation of pinching and lifting the knob and the brush is taken out in
`
`this state. However, according to Lee, it is necessary to keep the knob lifted with the finger when
`
`the brush is taken out, and there is a possibility that the brush jumps out of the container when
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/394528
`Reply to Action dated 06/13/2017
`
`the tray raises up since the tray has no side walls. Thus, Lee fails to meet the “state” and related
`
`features associated with that state in claim 10. Thus, Lee fails to remedy the above-stated
`
`deficiencies of the cited art.
`
`The suggested combination of Myles et al., Chatelier, Baba, and Lee, which Applicant
`
`does not concede are combinable, fails to teach or suggest claim 10.
`
`For at least the above reasons, claim 10 and its dependent claims are patentable over the
`
`suggested combination of Myles et al., Chatelier, Baba, and Lee. Applicant does not concede the
`
`correctness of the rejection with respect to features not discussed above. Favorable
`
`reconsideration of the claims and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`Claims 20-23 were rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Myles et al. in view of Chatelier, Rush (US 2012/0080330) and Lee. Applicant respectfully
`
`traverses the rejection.
`
`Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed towards a sensor storage container for holding
`
`flat sensors. The sensor storage container includes a bottomed cylindrical container body, an
`
`opening/closing lid, a hinge portion, a bottomed inner case, a linking body and a plurality of
`
`sensors. The sensors are stored in a direction parallel to the hinge portion in the inner case. The
`
`end of the sensor on the bottom face side of the inner case is thinner than the end of the sensor on
`
`the opening side of the inner case in a state of being stored in the inner case.
`
`Furthermore, when the lip disposed on an opposite side with respect to the hinge portion
`
`on the opening/closing lid is opened further by the fingers and the upper end of the inner case is
`
`moving up gradually to the opening of the container body, the opening/closing lid enters its
`
`completely open state with respect to the container body. At this time, the upper ends of the
`
`sensor protrudes above the top face opening of the container body since the inner case is pulled
`
`up by the linking body and moves upward within the container body.
`
`Also at this time, in a state in which the opening/closing lid is open and the inner case has
`
`risen up through the container body, the upper ends of the sensors protrudes above the opening
`
`of the container body and are spread apart more than the lower ends and reach to the peripheral
`
`edge of the opening of the inner case.
`
`Accordingly, this allows a user to easily grasp the portion of one sensor of the upper end
`
`side, and remove that sensor.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/394528
`Reply to Action dated 06/13/2017
`
`In addition, the sensor storage container of the present invention includes a sloped bottom
`
`face to adjust a space at the lower end side of the sensors. Accordingly, the sensor faces of the
`
`sensors are positioned to be sloped in a direction of the hinge portion before the inner case has
`
`risen up. Therefore, the sloped bottom face is provided to adjust the state in which the sensors
`
`are held when the inner case is risen up, so in a state in which the opening/closing lid is open and
`
`the inner case has risen up through the container body, the upper ends of the sensors are spread
`
`apart further more than the lower ends. That is, for example, the sloped bottom face is provided
`
`so that the sensors disposed on an opposite side of the linking body are supported in a state of
`
`being inclined toward the lip side with respect to the vertical direction.
`
`These features and advantages are not taught or suggested by the cited art. Myles fails to
`
`teach or suggest that the sensors are stored in a direction parallel to the hinge portion in the inner
`
`case, and sloped bottom face to adjust the state in which the sensors are held, so in a state in
`
`which the opening/closing lid is open and the inner case has risen up through the container body,
`
`upper ends of the sensors are spread apart more than the lower ends and reach to the peripheral
`
`edge of the opening of the inner case in a state in which the opening/closing lid is opened and the
`
`inner case is risen up through the container body.
`
`These deficiencies of Myles et al. are not remedied by Chatelier. That is, Chatelier fails to
`
`teach or suggest an inner case which is provided and the sloped portion and the step portion are
`
`provided to the container and the sensors are stored in a direction parallel to the hinge portion in
`
`the inner case, and a sloped bottom face provided to adjust the state in which the sensors are
`
`held, so in a state in which the opening/closing lid is open and the inner case has risen up through
`
`the container body, upper ends of the sensors are spread apart more than the lower ends and
`
`reach to the peripheral edge of the opening of the inner case in a state in which the
`
`opening/closing lid is opened and the inner case is risen up through the container body.
`
`Rush also fails to remedy the above-stated deficiencies of the cited art.
`
`Further, Lee is directed towards a cosmetic brush container for a brush, a knob, a lid, a
`
`rod, a cylindrical sidewall and a tray, wherein multiple brushes are disposed on the tray and the
`
`tray rises according to the operation of pinching and lifting the knob and the brush is taken out in
`
`this state. However, according to Lee, it is necessary to keep the knob lifted with the finger when
`
`the brush is taken out, and there is a possibility that the brush jumps out of the container when
`
`the tray raises up since the tray has no side walls. Thus, Lee fails to meet the “state” and related
`
`11
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/394528
`Reply to Action dated 06/13/2017
`
`features associated with that state in claim 20. Thus, Lee fails to remedy the above-stated
`
`deficiencies of the cited art.
`
`The suggested combination of Myles et al., Chatelier, Rush, and Lee, which Applicant
`
`does not concede are combinable, fails to teach or suggest claim 20.
`
`For at least the above reasons, claim 20 and its dependent claims are patentable over the
`
`suggested combination of Myles et al., Chatelier, Rush, and Lee. Applicant does not concede the
`
`correctness of the rejection with respect to features not discussed above. Favorable
`
`reconsideration of the claims and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`Claim 32 was rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Myles et al., Chatelier, Baba, Lee, and further in view of Rush. Applicant respectfully traverses
`
`the rejection. Claim 32 depends from claim 10. Rush fails to remedy the deficiencies of Myles et
`
`al., Chatelier, Baba, and Lee stated above in regards to claim 10. Thus, claim 32 is patentable
`
`over the suggested combination of Myles et al., Chatelier, Baba, Lee and Rush, which Applicant
`
`does not concede are combinable. Applicant does not concede the correctness of the rejection
`
`with respect to features not discussed. Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration
`
`of the claim.
`
`In view of the above remarks, Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration
`
`of this application in the form of a Notice of Allowance. If any questions arise regarding this
`
`communication, the Examiner is invited to contact Applicant’s representative listed below.
`
`
`Dated: November 8 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER &
`LARSON, PC.
`45 s. 7th St, Suite 2700
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 455-3800
`
`By:
`
`/Alexander J. Kim/
`Alexander J. Kim
`
`Reg. No. 68,448
`AJK/lap
`
`12
`
`