UNITED STAlES P A lENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.o. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`13/509,873
`
`06/1112012
`
`Duncan P. Bathe
`
`3000-US-0026(IKAOOll-00US
`
`8620
`
`03115/2013
`
`48394
`7590
`SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC
`33 WOOD A VE SOUTH
`SECOND FLOOR, SUITE 210
`ISELIN, NJ 08830
`
`EXAMINER
`
`TSAI, MICHAEL JASPER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3771
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/15/2013
`
`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 addressees):
`docket@dsiplaw.com
`jescobar@dsiplaw.com
`Imurphy@dsiplaw.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`INO THERAPEUTICS EXHIBIT 2003
`Praxair Distribution v. INO Therapeutics
`IPR2015-00891
`
`1 of 16
`
`

`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`13/509,873
`
`Examiner
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`BATHE ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`
`Michael Tsai
`3771
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -(cid:173)
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE;2 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR t. t 36(a). In no event, however, maya reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If 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. § t33).
`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 t .704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)iZ! Responsive to communication(s) filed on 511512012, 611212012, and 81712012.
`2a)0 This action is FINAL.
`2b)iZ! This action is non-final.
`3)0 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)0 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 Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11,453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)iZ! Claim(s) 2-5.7,9 and 10 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s) __ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)0 Claim(s) __ is/are allowed.
`7)iZ! Claim(s) 2-5, 7,9, and 10 is/are rejected.
`8)0 Claim(s) __ is/are objected to.
`9)0 Claim(s) __ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`* 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
`htto:liwww.us..Qto.aov/oatents/init events/g..Qh/index.jsQ or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@us..Qto.qov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)iZ! The drawing(s) filed on 07 August 2012 is/are: a)O accepted or b)iZ! 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)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)O All b)O Some * c)O None of:
`1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. __ '
`3.0 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) iZ! Notice of References Cited (PTO·892)
`
`2) iZ!lnformation Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/S8/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 5/15/2012.
`U.s. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL·326 (Rev. 09·12)
`
`3) 0
`
`Interview Summary (PTO·413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. __ .
`4) 0 Other: __ .
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No.lMail Date 20130307
`
`2 of 16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/509,873
`Art Unit: 3771
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`1.
`
`The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure
`
`statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other
`
`information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states,
`
`"the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a
`
`separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on
`
`form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
`
`2.
`
`The references Peters et al. (US 7,114,510) and Bathe et al. (US 5,558,083)
`
`have been cited on pages 10 and 13 of the specifications.
`
`Drawings
`
`3.
`
`The drawings are objected to because of the unlabeled rectangular box(es)
`
`shown in figure. The drawings should be provided with suitable descriptive legends.
`
`See: 37 CFR 1.84 (n) and (0).
`
`4.
`
`The drawings are objected to because the drawings contain blank boxes and
`
`other shapes, which are not widely, recognized engineering symbols. Applicant must
`
`supply a suitable legend. A proposed drawing correction or corrected drawings are
`
`required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The
`
`objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
`
`37 CFR 1.84(n) and (0) permit use of symbols which are not universally
`recognized, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused
`with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable. In addition,
`suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office,
`
`3 of 16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/509,873
`Art Unit: 3771
`
`Page 3
`
`or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of
`the drawing. (Emphasis added). Thus the examiner may require, on a case-by(cid:173)
`case basis, the use of descriptive legends where it is believed that such will
`facilitate a clear understanding of the drawings without undue reliance on the
`specification for understanding of the subject matter depicted therein. "When
`possible, a drawing should be so complete that the purpose and operation of the
`invention may be readily understood by one skilled in the art by means of a mere
`inspection of said drawing. The necessity of reading the specification in
`connection with the drawing should be avoided, if possible." See Ex Parte
`Hartley, 1901 C.D. 247 (Comm'r Pat. 1901).
`
`5.
`
`In the instant case, the figure has boxes and other shapes and the use of
`
`descriptive legends is necessary because it is believed that such will facilitate a clear
`
`understanding of the drawings without undue reliance on the specification for
`
`understanding of the subject matter depicted therein. It is clear that the figure is not "so
`
`complete that the purpose and operation of the invention may be readily understood by
`
`one skilled in the art by means of a mere inspection of said drawing" and that undue
`
`reliance on the specification is required for understanding of the subject matter depicted
`
`therein. For example, in FIG. 1, the box labeled with the reference numeral 212 should
`
`be labeled with "CPU memory".
`
`6.
`
`Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in
`
`reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended
`
`replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate
`
`prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure
`
`number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure
`
`is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet,
`
`and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate
`
`4 of 16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/509,873
`Art Unit: 3771
`
`Page 4
`
`changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for
`
`consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering
`
`of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an
`
`application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New
`
`Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner,
`
`the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next
`
`Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`7.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`
`(8) 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-AlA), 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.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-
`
`AlA), 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-AlA
`
`the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Regarding claim 7, the limitation "a control module" recited on lines 6 and 13. It is
`
`unclear as to whether or not these control modules are the same control modules or a
`
`different one. It seems the control module is being redefined on line 13.
`
`5 of 16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/509,873
`Art Unit: 3771
`
`Page 5
`
`Regarding claim 9, the limitation "a control module" recited on lines 6 and 13. It is
`
`unclear as to whether or not these control modules are the same control modules or a
`
`different one. It seems the control module is being redefined on line 13.
`
`Claim 10 is included in the rejection for depending either directly or indirectly
`
`upon a rejected claim.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`9.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
`public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in
`the United States.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 02(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Peters et al. (7,114,510).
`
`Regarding claim 2, Peters discloses a gas delivery device to administer therapy
`
`gas from a gas source, the gas delivery device comprising a valve 10 attachable to the
`
`gas source 12 (gas cylinder), the valve 10 including an inlet 18 (inlet port) and an outlet
`
`20 (outlet port) in fluid communication and a valve actuator 16 (handle) to open or close
`
`the valve to allow the gas through the valve to a control module (to open and close the
`
`flow of gas from the cylinder to the gas dispensing device) (Peters, col. 2, lines 39-57).
`
`Peters also discloses a circuit (several electronic devices) including a memory 22
`
`(electronic memory device), a processor 23 (Peters, col. 2, lines 68-67), and a
`
`transceiver (transmitter) (Peters, col. 7, lines 1-10). Peters also discloses the memory to
`
`6 of 16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/509,873
`Art Unit: 3771
`
`Page 6
`
`store gas data comprising gas identification (initialization parameter data to the memory;
`
`initial parameter such as: cylinder serial number, gas lot number) (Peters, col. 5, line 45
`
`- col. 6, lines 15). Peters also discloses the processor and the transceiver in
`
`communication with the memory (processor instructs the memory; transmitter; transfer
`
`data from the memory device) (Peters, col. 3, lines 30-45; col. 7, lines 1-10) to send
`
`wireless opticalline-of-sight signals to communicate gas data to the control module that
`
`controls the gas delivery to a subject (transfer data from memory device to main
`
`computer; develop therapy protocol) (Peters, col. 7, lines 10-51). Peters also discloses
`
`the valve comprising a data input 22' (ports on handle) in communication with the
`
`memory 22 (memory device communicates with a one-wire port) to permit a user to
`
`enter gas data into the memory (distributer inputs the initialization parameters) (Peters,
`
`col. 2, lines 58-65; col. 5, lines 43-57).
`
`Regarding claim 4, Peters has everything as claimed (see rejection to claim 2).
`
`Peters also discloses that the valve comprises a power source 25 (battery) (Peters, col.
`
`2, lines 58-67), and the transceiver periodically sends the wireless opticalline-of-sight
`
`signals to the control module, wherein the signals are interrupted by a duration of time
`
`at which no signal is sent (handle to include a transmitter to transmit the data to a
`
`remote recording device at intervals) (Peters, col. 7, lines 1-20).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`11.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`7 of 16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/509,873
`Art Unit: 3771
`
`Page 7
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`12.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being unpatentable over Peters et
`
`al. (7,114,510).
`
`Regarding claim 5, Peters has everything as claimed including the transceiver
`
`(Peters, col. 7, lines 1-20), but does not specifically mention that the duration of time at
`
`which no signal is sent comprises of about 10 seconds. However, since the circuit and
`
`transceiver of Peters is the same as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the invention would looked at the Peters reference and considered the duration of time
`
`at which no signal is sent to be a matter of design consideration depending on the
`
`interval in which the user chooses to update the data of the control module.
`
`13.
`
`Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Peters et al. (7,114,510) as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Zaitsu et al.
`
`(2002/0013551 ).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Peters has everything as claimed including the gas data, but
`
`does not specifically disclose that the gas data is provided in a bar code disposed on
`
`the gas source.
`
`Zaitsu teaches data (identification information) is provided in bar codes disposed
`
`on sources (medical pumps) (Zaitsu, para. 0057, lines 10-20).
`
`8 of 16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/509,873
`Art Unit: 3771
`
`Page 8
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the invention was made to add to the gas sources of Peters bar codes as taught by
`
`Zaitsu in order to provide product identification to ensure proper distribution of product.
`
`The now modified Peters reference also discloses the data is inputted by a user-
`
`operated scanning device 102a (scanner) in communication with the data input (reads
`
`information to the system) (Zaitsu, para. 0057, lines 10-20).
`
`Regarding claim 7, Peters has everything as claimed (see rejection to claim 2).
`
`Peters also discloses that the control module (gas dispensing device) is in fluid
`
`communication with the outlet of the valve (flow of gas from the cylinder to other gas
`
`dispensing devices) and also discloses a ventilator, but does not specifically disclose
`
`the control module being in fluid communication with a ventilator. However, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have looked at the
`
`Peters reference and recognize that it would have been obvious to connect a ventilator
`
`to the control module (gas dispensing device) in order to control the gases dispensed to
`
`a patient. The now modified Peters reference does not specifically disclose that the
`
`control module comprises a CPU transmitter or a CPU.
`
`Zaitsu teaches a control module 100 (controller) comprising a CPU transmitter
`
`107 (wireless; communication port expansion device) and a CPU 901 (Zaitsu, para.
`
`0056, lines 8-24).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the invention was made to add to the control module of the modified Peters
`
`9 of 16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/509,873
`Art Unit: 3771
`
`Page 9
`
`reference a CPU transmitter and CPU as taught by Zaitsu in order to wirelessly
`
`communicate with and send commands to other components of the system.
`
`The now modified Peters reference also discloses the CPU in communication
`
`with the CPU transceiver and including a CPU memory 902 (RAM), as shown in Zaitsu's
`
`FIG. 9. The modified Peters reference also discloses the transceiver communicates the
`
`gas data to the CPU transceiver for storage in the CPU memory (collected data is then
`
`downloaded into a main computer) (Peters, col. 7, lines 1-15). The modified Peters
`
`reference also discloses the valve comprises a timer 21 (at least two timers) including a
`
`calendar timer and an event timer, wherein the memory stores the date and time of
`
`opening and closing of the valve and the duration of time that the valve is open (record
`
`time and date of the event; the processor uses the logged open and close times to
`
`calculate the amount of time the valve was open and instructs the memory device to
`
`record that duration) (Peters, col. 3, lines 45-53). The modified Peters reference also
`
`discloses the transceiver communicating the date and time of the opening and closing
`
`of the valve to the CPU transceiver for storage in the CPU memory (collected data
`
`downloaded to main computer) (Peters, col. 7, lines 1-45).
`
`14.
`
`Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Peters et al. (7,114,510) in view of Zaitsu et al. (2002/0013551) as applied to claim 7
`
`above, and in further view of Rice et al. (7,980,245)
`
`Regarding claim 9, the modified Peters reference has everything as claimed
`
`including the valve and the control device (see rejection to claim 7 above). The modified
`
`10 of 16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/509,873
`Art Unit: 3771
`
`Page 10
`
`Peters reference also discloses that the control module further comprises an input
`
`means 904 (keyboard), and a display 101 (Zaitsu, para. 0056, lines 10-24). The
`
`modified Peters reference does not specifically disclose that the patient information is
`
`entered into the CPU memory.
`
`Rice teaches data stored in a CPU memory 36 (information tag) including patent
`
`information (Rice, col. 5, lines 39-55).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the invention was made to include in the CPU memory of the modified Peters
`
`reference patient information to ensure that the correct configuration is being used for
`
`the associated patient.
`
`Regarding claim 10, the now modified Peters reference also discloses that the
`
`CPU comprises of an alarm that is triggered when the patient information entered in the
`
`CPU and the gas data from the transceiver do not match (improper connection can
`
`produce inaccurate data and waste of medical gases, and at worst, a dangerous
`
`situation for patients; raising an alarm) (Rice, col. 6, lines 25-40).
`
`Double Patenting
`
`15.
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created
`
`doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the
`
`unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent
`
`and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory
`
`11 of 16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/509,873
`Art Unit: 3771
`
`Page 11
`
`obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims
`
`are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct
`
`from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated
`
`by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140
`
`F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29
`
`USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887,225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937,214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422
`
`F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163
`
`USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`
`A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d)
`
`may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory
`
`double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to
`
`be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of
`
`activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
`
`Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a
`
`terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with
`
`37 CFR 3.73(b).
`
`16.
`
`Claims 2-5, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-
`
`type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,291,904 ('904 reference). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are
`
`not patentably distinct from each other because the only difference between the claims
`
`2-5,7, 9 and 10 of the present application and the '904 reference is the inclusion of the
`
`12 of 16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/509,873
`Art Unit: 3771
`
`Page 12
`
`gas container containing the gas comprising NO. However, since nitric oxide is a well-
`
`known gas that is delivered to patients. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found
`
`it obvious to modify the invention as claimed in claim 2 to include NO.
`
`Conclusion
`
`17.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure. Toth et al. (5,191,317) and DeVries et al . (7,849,854) both
`
`disclose breathing devices with valves that include a transmitter that is able to wirelessly
`
`transmit data regarding gas information. Bathe et al. (5,558,083), Epstein (5,100,380),
`
`Dickerson, Jr. (5,868,162), Sancoff et al. (5,078,683), and Stewart (7,927,313) all
`
`disclose distribution systems with a control module in fluid connection to sources. Wolf
`
`et al. (5,505,195), McDermott et al. (6,326,896), Voege et al. (7,298,280), and Pitchford
`
`et al. (2011/0284777) all disclose valve devices with transmitters or alarms.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Michael Tsai whose telephone number is (571 )270-
`
`5246. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday, 7:30am to 5pm
`
`EST.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Justine Yu can be reached on 571-272-4835. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`13 of 16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/509,873
`Art Unit: 3771
`
`Page 13
`
`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.
`
`/Michael Tsai/
`Examiner, Art Unit 3771
`
`/Justine R Yu/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
`
`14 of 16
`
`

`
`Notice of References Cited
`
`Application/Control No.
`
`13/509,873
`
`Examiner
`
`Michael Tsai
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination
`BATHE ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`
`3771
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`Document Number
`Country Code-Number-Kind Code
`
`A US-5,078,683
`
`Name
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY
`
`01-1992
`
`Sancoff et al.
`
`03-1992
`
`Epstein et al.
`
`03-1993
`
`Toth et al.
`
`04-1996
`
`Wolf et al.
`
`09-1996
`
`Bathe et al.
`
`02-1999
`
`Dickerson, Jr., William H.
`
`12-2001
`
`McDermott et al.
`
`01-2002
`
`Zaitsu et al.
`
`10-2006
`
`Peters et al.
`
`11-2007
`
`Voege et al.
`
`12-2010
`
`DeVries et al.
`
`04-2011
`
`07-2011
`
`Stewart et al.
`
`Rice et al.
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Classification
`
`604/67
`
`604/67
`
`340/626
`
`128/203.15
`
`128/203.12
`
`137/557
`
`340/626
`
`604/151
`
`137/1
`
`340/606
`
`128/205.11
`
`604/189
`
`128/204.21
`
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`US-7,927,313
`L
`* M US-7,980,245
`
`US-5,100,380
`
`B
`C US-5, 191,317
`D US-5,505,195
`US-5,558,083
`
`E
`
`F
`
`G
`
`H
`
`I
`
`J
`
`K
`
`US-5,868,162
`
`US-6,326,896
`
`US-2002/00 13551
`
`US-7,114,510
`
`US-7,298,280
`
`US-7,849,854
`
`*
`
`Document Number
`Country Code-Number-Kind Code
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY
`
`Country
`
`Name
`
`Classification
`
`NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
`
`*
`
`N
`
`0
`
`P
`
`Q
`
`R
`
`S
`
`T
`
`U
`
`V
`
`W
`
`X
`
`*A copy of this reference IS not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
`Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
`
`U.s. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001)
`
`Notice of References Cited
`
`Part of Paper No. 20130307
`
`15 of 16
`
`

`
`Notice of References Cited
`
`Application/Control No.
`
`13/509,873
`
`Examiner
`
`Michael Tsai
`
`Document Number
`Country Code-Number-Kind Code
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Name
`
`US-2011/0284777
`
`11-2011
`
`Pitchford et al.
`
`US-
`
`*
`*
`
`A
`
`B
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination
`BATHE ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`
`3771
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`Classification
`
`251/65
`
`US-
`
`C
`D US-
`US-
`
`E
`
`F
`
`G
`
`H
`
`I
`
`J
`
`K
`
`US-
`
`US-
`
`US-
`
`US-
`
`US-
`
`US-
`
`US-
`
`L
`M US-
`
`*
`
`Document Number
`Country Code-Number-Kind Code
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY
`
`Country
`
`Name
`
`Classification
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
`
`*
`
`N
`
`0
`
`P
`
`Q
`
`R
`
`S
`
`T
`
`U
`
`V
`
`W
`
`X
`
`*A copy of this reference IS not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
`Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
`
`U.s. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001)
`
`Notice of References Cited
`
`Part of Paper No. 20130307
`
`16 of 16