www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/709,993
`
`09/20/2017
`
`Kunran Wu
`
`CSPT— 150US
`
`2120
`
`RATNERPRESTIA
`
`2200 RENAISSANCE BLVD
`SUITE 350
`
`KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
`
`HINCAPIE SERNA, GUSTAVO A
`
`ART UNIT
`3763
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/13/2019
`
`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):
`
`peorrespondenee@ratnerprestia.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0,7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/709,993
`Examiner
`GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA
`
`Applicant(s)
`Wu et al.
`Art Unit
`3763
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 02/07/2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—14is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—4,9 and 11—12 is/are rejected.
`
`Claim(s) 5—8,10 and 13—14 is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.'sp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11):] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)C] accepted or b)Ej objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)C] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)C] All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190501
`
`

`

`
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`This action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 02/07/2019. Amended claims 1-
`
`2, 4-6 and 8 are acknowledged. Claims 1-1-14 are pending.
`
`Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Regarding claim 1, in lines 10-11, in each line, “...the fixing bolt...” should read --...the
`
`respective fixing bolt. .
`
`.
`
`Regarding claims 2-14, they are objected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U. S. C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and
`distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U. S. C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
`subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
`
`which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Regarding claim 13, in line 3, it is unclear how many “stoppers” are there in each fixing bolt. Per
`
`Claim 6, each fixing bolt comprises an outer flange which comprises a single stopper provided on a
`
`surface of the outer flange.
`
`For the purpose of this examination, the claim has been interpreted to mean
`
`.. The ventilating device according to claim 6, wherein
`
`by rotating the fixing bolt in a first direction, the fixing bolt is rotated to the first position, in which
`
`the fixing bolt body and the stopper are not aligned With the main orifice portion and the lateral orifice
`
`portions, respectively; and
`
`

`

`
`
`by rotating the fixing bolt in a second direction opposite to the first direction, the fixing bolt is
`
`rotated to the second position, in which the fixing bolt body and the stopper are aligned with the main
`
`orifice portion and the lateral orifice portions, respectivel
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U. S. C. 112(f):
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a
`means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support
`thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in
`the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S. C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified
`function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to
`cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`Use ofthe word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts
`
`within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the
`
`claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not
`
`invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure,
`
`material or acts to perform that function.
`
`Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to
`
`invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that
`
`do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as
`
`otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to
`
`invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that
`
`do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as
`
`otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain
`
`meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a
`
`claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong
`
`test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means”
`
`that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific
`
`structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically,
`
`but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or
`
`phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure,
`
`material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use ofthe word “means” (or “‘step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means” (or “‘step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the
`
`claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting
`
`sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “‘step”) are being interpreted
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an
`
`Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “‘step”)
`
`

`

`
`
`are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
`
`otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`2.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are
`
`nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because
`
`the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting
`
`sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a
`
`structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a heat exchanging element in claim 2.
`
`Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure
`
`described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
`
`(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to
`
`avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by
`
`reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the
`
`claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`3.
`
`Claim limitation “a heat exchanging element” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
`
`or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “heat
`
`exchanging element” coupled with functional language “exchanging energy” without reciting sufficient
`
`structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural
`
`modifier.
`
`Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`claim 2 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that
`
`achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure
`
`described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
`
`limitation: A heat exchanging element 230 for exchanging energy between the indoor air and the
`
`outdoor air is provided at the intersection position between the air supply path 210 and the air
`
`

`

`
`
`discharge path 220. As shown in FIG. 4, the heat exchanging element 230 divides the heat
`
`exchanger into an outdoor air intake area A, an indoor air outtake area B, an indoor air intake area
`
`C, and an outdoor air outtake area D.
`
`If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation ofthe
`
`corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the
`
`specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to
`
`this Office action.
`
`If applicant does not intend to have the claim |imitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not
`
`invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that
`
`the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to
`
`preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for
`
`Determining Compliance With 35 U. 8. C. 112 and for Treatment of Flelated Issues in Patent Applications,
`
`76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U. S. C. 103:
`A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not
`identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art
`are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
`claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Claims 1-4, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Lagace et al. (US 2001/0013404, herein “Lagace”) in view of Ichikawa (US 6,435,790).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Lagace discloses a ventilating device (figs 1-7), comprising:
`
`a frame (1) forming an outer contour,
`
`an airflow path (26, 27) formed by a flowing of air inside the frame (1 ), and
`
`a plurality of orifices (6, 7, 8, 9) provided on the frame (1), and
`
`Lagace does not disclose:
`
`

`

`
`
`a plurality of fixing bolts, each provided in a respective orifice and being
`
`rotatable with respect to the respective orifice between a first position, in which
`
`the respective fixing bolt cannot be removed from the respective orifice, and a
`
`second position, in which the respective fixing bolt can be removed from the
`
`respective orifice.
`
`Ichikawa, directed to a component attachment apparatus, teaches a fixing bolt (40) (fig. 1), for
`
`attaching a component in a panel orifice (21, 31) [Abs., lines 1-2], that incorporates a pin (80 plus 90) that
`
`may be used for air tight pressurization of Lagace’s ventilating device when no gauges are disposed in
`
`Legace’s orifices (6, 7, 8, 9).
`
`lchikawa’s fixing bolt (40) is rotatable [col. 1, lines 66-67] with respect to the orifice (21, 31)
`
`between a first position (the position where the bolt -40- is when it is inserted into the orifice -21, 31 -), in
`
`which the bolt (40) cannot be removed from the orifice (21, 31) [col. 6, lines 18-28], and a second
`
`position, in which the fixing bolt (40) can be removed from the respective orifice (21, 31) [col. 6, lines 29-
`
`31].
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention, to provide Lagace with a plurality of fixing bolts, each provided in a respective orifice
`
`and being rotatable with respect to the respective orifice between a first position, in which the respective
`
`fixing bolt cannot be removed from the respective orifice, and a second position, in which the respective
`
`fixing bolt can be removed from the respective orifice, as taught by Ichikawa, the motivation being to
`
`incorporate a pin that may be used for airtight pressurization of Lagace’s ventilating device when no
`
`gauges are disposed in Legace’s orifices.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Lagace discloses the airflow path (26, 27) comprising an air supply path (26)
`
`for allowing the air to flow from outside to a room [par. 0206, lines 6-7], and an air discharge path (27) for
`
`allowing the air to flow from the room to outside [par. 0206, lines 10-14];
`
`a heat exchanging element (37) for exchanging energy between indoor air and outdoor air [par.
`
`0053, lines 1-7] being provided at an intersection position (30) between the air supply path (26) and the
`
`air discharge path (27) (figs. 2-7); and
`
`

`

`
`
`the plurality of orifices (6, 7, 8, 9) being provided in the airflow path (26, 27) at a position (7, 8)
`
`where the air has not reached the heat exchanging element (37) yet orin the airflow path (26, 27) at a
`
`position (6, 9) where the air has already left the heat exchanging element (37).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Lagace discloses a surface of the frame (1) being provided with a panel (3)
`
`capable of being opened and closed [par. 0202, lines 8-10], and the plurality of orifices (6, 7, 8, 9)
`
`being provided on the panel (3) (fig. 1).
`
`Regarding claim 4, the recitation “in the first position, the fixing bolt is configured to fiX a
`
`measuring tube of different sizes of a static pressure gauge therein so as to measure a static pressure in
`
`a chamber where the airflow path is located” is considered to be a recitation with respect to the manner in
`
`which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used. It is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner
`
`in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a
`
`prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations of the claimed, as is the case here. Refer to
`
`MPEP 2114 (II). In the instant case, the combination of Lagace and lchikawa’s fixing bolt (40) can be
`
`configured to fix a measuring tube of different sizes of a static pressure gauge therein so as to measure a
`
`static pressure in a chamber where the airflow path is located.
`
`In the second position, the fixing bolt (lchikawa, 40) can be removed from the respective orifice
`
`(Lagace, 6, 7, 8, 9) [lchikawa, col. 6, lines 29-31], so as to drain water out of the frame via the respective
`
`orifice (Lagace, 6, 7, 8, 9) (it is noted, if Lagace’s ventilating device is rotated 90 degrees, towards the
`
`side of the panel -3-, the panel -3- would act as a bottom panel of the device and would facilitate draining
`
`water out of the frame via a respective orifice).
`
`Regarding claim 9, Lagace discloses an inner wall of the panel (3) being provided with a thermal
`
`insulating member (5) [par. 0202, lines 3-8] preventing heat exchange between the air inside the
`
`ventilating device and the air outside the ventilating device, and
`
`the thermal insulating member (5) being provided with a guide hole (6, 7, 8, 9) penetrating
`
`through the thermal insulating member (5) (fig. 1).
`
`Regarding claim 11, Lagace discloses the ventilating device (figs. 1-7) being an air blower (51)
`
`or a heat exchanger (37).
`
`

`

`
`
`Regarding claim 12, the recitation “when the ventilating device is mounted on a wall other than a
`
`ceiling, the plurality of orifices are provided on a surface acting as a bottom surface of the frame” is
`
`considered to be a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be
`
`used. It is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to
`
`be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed
`
`structural limitations of the claimed, as is the case here. Flefer to MPEP 2114 (II). In the instant case, the
`
`ventilating device taught by Lagace can be adapted to be mounted on a wall, so the plurality of orifices
`
`are provided on a surface acting as a bottom surface of the frame if it is rotated 90 degrees.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Claims 5-8, 10 and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
`
`would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and
`
`any intervening claims.
`
`Reasons for Allowance
`
`The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
`
`The prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in claims 6
`
`and 10, and specifically does not teach or suggest “...the fixing bolt further comprises an outer flange
`
`provided in an insertion direction of the measuring tube and having a larger diameter than each of the
`
`plurality of orifices, a stopper extending outwardly in a rotational direction of the fixing bolt is provided on
`
`a surface of the outer flange facing the fixing bolt body, and the outer flange is formed with a
`
`third opening communicating with the second opening; one end of the stopper is provided with a hook
`
`portion and the other end thereof is provided with a connecting portion connected to the outer flange;
`
`and... a water storage portion recessed towards the panel is formed on the thermal insulating member,
`
`and the guide hole is provided at a lowest point of the water storage portion.
`
`The closest prior art of record (the combination of Lagace and Ichikawa) does not teach the fixing
`
`bolt further comprising an outer flange provided in an insertion direction of the measuring tube and having
`
`a larger diameter than each of the plurality of orifices, a stopper extending outwardly in a rotational
`
`

`

`
`
`direction of the fiXing bolt being provided on a surface of the outer flange facing the fiXing bolt body, and
`
`the outer flange being formed with a third opening communicating with the second opening; one end of
`
`the stopper being provided with a hook portion and the other end thereof being provided with a
`
`connecting portion connected to the outer flange; and... a water storage portion recessed towards the
`
`panel being formed on the thermal insulating member, and the guide hole being provided at a lowest
`
`point of the water storage portion.
`
`Although the teachings of the combination of Lagace and Ichikawa are similar, there is no
`
`teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate
`
`one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art to have the features of the
`
`independent claim. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor
`
`rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claim.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 02/07/2019 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amended claim 1. In
`
`response, the new grounds of rejection clearly address the limitations, as claimed.
`
`Regarding the previous rejection of claim 4, Applicant argues that a person of skill in the art would
`
`not have been motivated to make a reference to Ichikawa, since Ichikawa is directed to attaching two
`
`panels (20, 30) in overlaid state.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted, the limitation the Applicant is referring to is
`
`functional. MPEP 2114 || clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does"
`
`and “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended
`
`to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art
`
`apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because previous claim 4 fails to further limit
`
`the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding “a fixing
`
`bolt fgr fixing a measuring tube of different sizes...” limitation, the invention as taught by the combined
`
`teachings of Legace and Ichikawa is deemed fully capable of performing such function. Therefore, the
`
`claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in the previous action.
`
`

`

`
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office
`
`action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of
`
`the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from
`
`the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date
`
`of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH
`
`shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action
`
`is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX
`
`MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
`
`be directed to GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA whose telephone number is (571 )272—601 8. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached on 10:00am - 6:00pm.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a
`
`USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use
`
`the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len
`
`Tran can be reached on 571-272—1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application
`
`or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
`
`Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from
`
`either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through
`
`Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC)
`
`at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative
`
`

`

`
`
`or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272—
`
`1000.
`
`/PAUL ALVARE/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
`
`/GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3763
`
`