`
`Introduction
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-8 and 15 are pending, of which claims 1 and 5 are independent.
`
`Claims 1-7 have been amendedto correct informalities in the claim language and to more
`
`clearly define the present subject matter. Claims 9-14 have been canceled without prejudice.
`
`Claim 15 has been added. No new matter has been added.
`
`Objection
`
`Claims 3, 4, 6 and 12 were objected to. Applicant submits that the amendments made to
`
`the claims overcome the objection.
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`Claims 2, 7 and 10-14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
`
`Applicant submits that the amendments madeto the claims overcomethe rejection.
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
`
`Claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bunyan
`
`(WO 2017/172703). Claims 2, 5 and 6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Bunyanin view of Fukui (US 2016/0336253). Claim 3 was rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bunyan in view of Tachibana (JP 2014-133669). Claim
`
`4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bunyan in view of Greinke (US
`
`6,746,768). Claims 7 and 10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Bunyan in view of Fisher (US 7,700,162). Claim 8 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`DM_US189443710-1.083710.3191
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/050,429
`
`unpatentable over Bunyanin view of Sayir (US 2007/0053168). Claim 9 wasrejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bunyan in view of Hirose (US 2009/0301697). Claim
`
`11 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bunyan in view of Fisher and
`
`Tachibana. Claim 12 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bunyan in
`
`view of Fisher and Greinke. Claim 13 wasrejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Bunyan in view of Fisher and Sayir. Claim 14 wasrejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Bunyanin view ofFisher and Hirose.
`
`Without conceding any correctness of the rejections, Applicant traverses the rejections
`
`for at least the following reasons.
`
`At a minimum,noneof the cited references disclose “the heat generating componentand
`
`the film are sealed with the mountboard and the pressing component by connecting the mount
`
`board and the pressing component,” as recited by claim 1 and “sealing the heat generating
`
`componentand the film with the mountboard and the pressing component;” as recited by claim
`
`5.
`
`Assuch, claims 1 and 5 and all claims dependent thereon are patentable overthe cited
`
`references.
`
`DM_US189443710-1.083710.3191
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/050,429
`
`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: 202.756.8000 MEF:TS:
`Facsimile: 202.756.8087
`Date: August 4, 2022
`
`DM_US189443710-1.083710.3191
`
`