www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/495,943
`
`09/20/2019
`
`Takuya OKA
`
`P190899US00
`
`3223
`
`WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
`8500 LEESBURG PIKE
`SUITE 7500
`TYSONS, VA 22182
`
`HORNSBY, BARTHOLOMEW ANDREW
`
`ART UNIT
`1728
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/27/2021
`
`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):
`
`patentmail @ whda.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
`OKA et al.
`16/495,943
`AIA (First Inventor
`Examiner
`Applicant-InitiatedInterview Summary
`BARTHOLOMEW A|Unit_|to File) Status
`HORNSBY
`Yes
`
`
`
`Telephonic
`"‘BARTHOLOMEW A HORNSBY
`
`
`[MariaJLaiosCC—C~—“‘*CSC*dC@PrimmaryExaminer=|—C“(i‘“C;CidC
`Michael J Caridi
`Attorney of Record PO
`
`Date of Interview: 22 July 2021
`
`Issues Discussed:
`
`35 U.S.C. 103
`
`Applicant's arguments provided in the responsefiled 7/8/2021 were persuasive with respectto the
`overlapping range and the office's next action will be a non-final. Also discussed were the unexpected
`results, this argument wasnot found persuasive, as it appeared from Table 1, many variables were
`altered and a distinction of superior results could not be determinedat the time of the interview. This
`portion of the remarks would require further consideration
`
`/B.A.H./
`Examiner, Art Unit 1728
`
`/Maria Laios/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
`
`37 CFR§ 1.2 Businessto be transacted in writing
`
`Applicant is reminded that a complete written statement as to the substance of the interview must be made of record in
`the application file. It is the applicants responsibility to provide the written statement, unless the interview wasinitiated
`by the Examiner and the Examiner hasindicated that a written summarywill be provided. See MPEP 713.04
`Pleasefurther see:
`MPEP 713.04
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews, paragraph (b)
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substanceof the
`interview. (See MPEP section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, applicant is given a
`non-extendable period of the longer of one monthor thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this
`interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substanceofthe interview.
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substanceof any interview of record. A complete
`and proper recordation of the substance of an interview should include the itemslisted in MPEP 713.04 for complete
`and proper recordation including the identification of the general thrust of each argumentor issue discussed, a general
`indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the general results or outcome of the
`interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the issuesraised.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413/41 3b (Rev. Oct. 2019)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20210722
`
`