Application No.: 16/612,417
`
`Introduction
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-6 are pending, of which claim 1 is independent.
`
`Claims 1 and 2 have been amendedto correct informalities in the claim language and to
`
`more clearly define the present subject matter. No new matter has been added.
`
`Entry of various comments regarding the claims and/orthe art, in the Office Action,
`
`should not be construed as any acquiescence or agreement by Applicants with the stated
`
`reasoning, regardless of whether or not these remarksspecifically address any particular
`
`commentfrom the Office Action.
`
`Reconsideration of this application for allowanceofall pending claims is hereby
`
`respectfully requested in view of the claim amendmentand the following remarks.
`
`Claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
`
`The Examinerasserted that “a detection circuit corrects the distortion component ...”
`
`is a
`
`means-plus-function under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`According to M.P.E.P. § 2181, the following are examples of structural terms that have
`
`been found not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: "circuit,"
`
`"detent mechanism,” "digital detector,"
`
`"reciprocating member,”
`
`"connector assembly,"
`
`Won
`
`Won
`
`Won
`
`“perforation,”
`
`"sealingly connected joints," and "eyeglass hanger member.” Since “circuit” is not
`
`considered as a non-structural generic place holder but is considered as a structural term, the
`
`claimed “detection circuit” is also a structural term and doesnot invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-6 are pending, of which claim 1 is independent.
`
`Claims 1 and 2 have been amendedto correct informalities in the claim language and to
`
`more clearly define the present subject matter. No new matter has been added.
`
`Entry of various comments regarding the claims and/orthe art, in the Office Action,
`
`should not be construed as any acquiescence or agreement by Applicants with the stated
`
`reasoning, regardless of whether or not these remarksspecifically address any particular
`
`commentfrom the Office Action.
`
`Reconsideration of this application for allowanceofall pending claims is hereby
`
`respectfully requested in view of the claim amendmentand the following remarks.
`
`Claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
`
`The Examinerasserted that “a detection circuit corrects the distortion component ...”
`
`is a
`
`means-plus-function under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`According to M.P.E.P. § 2181, the following are examples of structural terms that have
`
`been found not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: "circuit,"
`
`"detent mechanism,” "digital detector,"
`
`"reciprocating member,”
`
`"connector assembly,"
`
`Won
`
`Won
`
`Won
`
`“perforation,”
`
`"sealingly connected joints," and "eyeglass hanger member.” Since “circuit” is not
`
`considered as a non-structural generic place holder but is considered as a structural term, the
`
`claimed “detection circuit” is also a structural term and doesnot invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`
`
`Application No.: 16/612,417
`
`Claims 1-6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. The Examiner
`
`asserted that “a detection circuit corrects the distortion component ...” is a means-plus-function
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) but the specification does not disclose correspondingstructures. In
`
`addition, Claims 1-6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written
`
`description requirement. Without conceding any correctness of the rejections, Applicant
`
`traverses the rejections for at least the following reasons.
`
`Asset forth above, the claimed “detection circuit” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f,
`
`the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as asserted by the Examiner has no merit.
`
`Further, the Examinerraised issued about the distortion waveform and connecting
`
`adjacent peaks. Applicant submits that the amendments madeto claim | in view of the
`
`following arguments overcomethe rejection. The upper figure of FIG. 7B shows a third signal
`
`(angle) obtained by an arctan operation on the first detection signal and the second detection
`
`signal (see, claim 2), which is an ideal signal without distortion. However, as shown in FIG. 7C,
`
`the third signal includes a distortion component, whichthe inventor of the present application
`
`found has a period of 45 degrees (see, paragraph [0121] of the specification).
`
`It is noted that
`
`FIG. 7C shows only the distortion component which can be obtained by subtracting the ideal
`
`third signal (a linear component shown in FIG. 7B) from the actual third signal (with distortion
`
`component). Then, as shown in FIG. 7D, in which the
`
`simplicity, a correction signa is obtained by connecting
`
`distortion componentis illustrated as a simple sine curve for
`napAORcceonccegranemt
`SimcoeeG:
`
`
`
`adjacent peaks in the waveform ofthe distortion component.
`
`Oneof ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that
`
`in the distortion component shownin FIG. 7C, the correction
`
`
`
`Application No.: 16/612,417
`
`signal is obtained as shownin the right figure. Then, the correction signal is subtracted from the
`
`distortion component, thereby obtaining a corrected third signal as shown in FIG. 7D(b). See
`
`paragraphs [0121]-[0126] of the present specification.
`
`Assuch, in view of the specification and the drawings, the scope of claim 1 is clear and
`
`definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and the subject matter of claim 1 is supported by the original
`
`disclosure.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw therejection of
`
`claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
`
`
`
`Application No.: 16/612,417
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Having fully respondedto all matters raised in the Office Action, Applicant submits that
`
`all claims are in condition for allowance, an indication for whichis respectfully solicited. If
`
`there are any outstanding issues that might be resolved by an interview or an Examiner’s
`
`amendment, the Examineris requested to call Applicant’s attorney at the telephone number
`
`shownbelow.
`
`To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is
`
`hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,
`
`including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account 500417 and please credit any excess fees to
`
`such deposit account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`/Takashi Saito/
`
`Takashi Saito
`Registration No. 69,536
`
`Please recognize our Customer No. 53080
`as our correspondenceaddress.
`
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001-1531
`Phone: 202.756.8244 TS:
`Facsimile: 202.756.8087
`Date: December 2, 2022
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
