VWGoA - Ex. 1019
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Petitioner
`
`1
`
`

`
` TJNI TED S '.['ATE'F_-1 PATEN T AND TRADEE-‘IARK QFFI CE
`
`Cornrnis-sinner for Patents
`United States Patent and Tradernark Office
`F'.O. Elo;~t145I:i
`Alexaridria, VA 2231 3-1 450
`vuvu-wuspto.gmr
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`ONE BROADWAY
`NEW YORK, NY 10004
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSM|'|'|'AL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/013 300.
`
`PATENT NO. 5917405.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL—465 (Rev.O7—04)
`
`2
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Reexamination (Ex Parte) has been requested by a third party for claim 1 of U.S.
`
`Patent 5,917,405 to Joao which issued on 06/29/1999 and filed 07/18/1996 (herein
`
`Joao) and is now expired.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability affecting claim 1 of U.S. Patent
`
`5,917,405 to Joao is raised by the request for Ex Parte reexamination filed 07/21/2014.
`
`Request Established References
`
`The request argues the following patents and/or printed publications provide
`
`teachings relevant to the claims of requested reexamination of patent 5,917,405 (Joao):
`
`a) Ramono, (U.S. 5,070,320), issued 12/03/1991, filed 06/12/1989. (herein
`
`Ramono)
`
`b) Kniffin et al., (U.S. 6,072,402), issued 06/06/2000, filed 01/09/1992.
`
`(herein Kniffin)
`
`c) Ryoichi et al., (U.S. 5,113,427), issued 05/12/1992, filed 08/24/1990.
`
`(herein Ryoichi)
`
`d) Pagliaroli et al., (U.S. 5,276,728), issued 01/04/1994, filed 11/06/1991.
`
`(herein Pagliaroli)
`
`3
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`e) Drori et al., (U.S. 5,081,667), issued 01/14/1992, filed 03/20/1990. (herein
`
`Drori)
`
`f) Memmola, (U.S. 5,103,221), issued 04/07/1992, filed 12/05/1989. (herein
`
`Memmola)
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
`
`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 —
`
`(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed
`publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
`
`(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.
`
`(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by
`another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent
`granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the
`applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section
`351 (a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States
`only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2)
`of such treaty in the English language.
`
`(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the
`United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application
`by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371 (c) of this
`title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
`
`The changes made to 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by the American Inventors Protection Act
`
`of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical
`
`Amendments Act of 2002 do not apply when the reference is a U.S. patent resulting
`
`directly or indirectly from an international application filed before November 29, 2000.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Therefore, the prior art date of the reference is determined under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior
`
`to the amendment by the AIPA (pre—AlPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)).
`
`Issue 1
`
`Claim 1
`
`is proposed as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Ramono.
`
`This rejection is proposed by the Third Party Requester in the Request for
`
`Reexamination of 07/21/2014 (pages 53-54 and 13-16 and claim chart 1) and it is
`
`applied for claim 1 for the reasons set forth therein (incorporated herein by reference).
`
`Issue 2
`
`Claim 1
`
`is proposed as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by
`
`Kniffin.
`
`This rejection is proposed by the Third Party Requester in the Request for
`
`Reexamination 07/21/2014 (pages 53-54 and 16-21 and claim chart 2) and it is applied
`
`for claim 1 for the reasons set forth therein (incorporated herein by reference).
`
`Issue 3
`
`Claim 1
`
`is proposed as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Ryoichi.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`This rejection is proposed by the Third Party Requester in the Request for
`
`Reexamination 07/21/2014 (pages 53-54 and 21 -25 and claim chart 3) and it is applied
`
`for claim 1 for the reasons set forth therein (incorporated herein by reference).
`
`Issue 4
`
`Claim 1
`
`is proposed as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by
`
`Pagliaroli.
`
`This rejection is proposed by the Third Party Requester in the Request for
`
`Reexamination 07/21/2014 (pages 53-54 and 25-28 and claim chart 4) and it is applied
`
`for claim 1 for the reasons set forth therein (incorporated herein by reference).
`
`Additional Issues
`
`The request for reexamination additionally applies references Drori and
`
`Memmola in combination with the above references Ramono, Kniffin, Ryoichi and
`
`Pagliaroli as issues 5-12. These additional rejections are cumulative to the above
`
`adopted rejections 1-4 and are not necessary and not applied to the current iteration of
`
`claim 1.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`MPEP 2256 states in pertinent part,
`
`Where patents, publications, and other such items of information are submitted by a party
`(Patent Owner or Requester) in compliance with the requirements of the rules, the
`requisite degree of consideration to be given to such information will be normally limited
`by the degree to which the party filing the information citation has explained the content
`and relevance of the information. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the
`
`6
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`citations on the form PTO/SB/08A and 08B or its equivalent, without an indication to the
`contrary in the record, do not signify that the information has been considered by the
`examiner any further than to the extent noted above. (emphasis added)
`
`In concert with MPEP 2256, the references submitted in the Information
`
`Disclosure Statement (IDS) 03/11/15 has been considered only to the extent that
`
`Requester has "explained the content and relevance" and as indicated above, noting
`
`that citations to incomplete or missing documents are not considered, and citations to
`
`duplicate or non-english documents are not considered, and also noting that "continued"
`
`citation lines are likely to cause error and therefore crossed out.
`
`In concert with MPEP 2256, the references submitted in the Information
`
`Disclosure Statement (IDS) O1/12/15 has been considered only to the extent that
`
`Requester has "explained the content and relevance" and as indicated above.
`
`In concert with MPEP 2256, the references submitted in the Information
`
`Disclosure Statement (IDS) 11/24/14 has been considered only to the extent that
`
`Requester has "explained the content and relevance" and as indicated above, noting
`
`the provided disk of references is unreadable and therefore there are no references to
`
`consider.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Patent Owner's arguments filed 01/12/2015 have been fully considered but they
`
`are not persuasive.
`
`Issue 1
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments (Response 01/12/2015: pages 6-8) have been fully
`
`considered but are not persuasive.
`
`Patent Owner argues the Ramono reference does not disclose the limitations of
`
`the claim 1
`
`including at least “a first control device, wherein said first control device one
`
`of generates and transmits a first signal for one of activating, deactivating, enabling, and
`
`disabling, one of a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle system, and a vehicle
`
`subsystem, wherein said first control device is located at the vehicle”. Patent Owner
`
`further states, “There is no intermediate control device at the vehicle in Ramono and,
`
`therefore, there is no recited first control device located at the vehicle, in Ramano,
`
`which generates the recited first signal
`
`Ramono states “vehicle alarm unit
`
`is intended to be installed in any vehicle
`
`such that when the corresponding remote alarm initiator unit initiates an alarm to a fixed
`
`area alarm unit within range of the automobile, the fixed area alarm unit can signal the
`
`vehicle unit to signal, for example by flashing the exterior vehicle lights” (Ramono:
`
`column 10, line 67 to column 11, line 8), which not only indicates the first control unit,
`
`but also the third and second control units. The cited passage discusses a "vehicle
`
`alarm unit" (first control device), a "fixed area alarm unit" (second control device, or an
`
`8
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`intermediate control device), and a “remote alarm unit” (third control device). At least the
`
`“exterior vehicle lights” are the claim’s "vehicle component”. Therefore, Patent Owner’s
`
`argument is unpersuasive.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner argues “the vehicle alarm unit or system of Ramono,
`
`or any components of same, cannot be and cannot serve as both the ‘first control
`
`device’ and the ‘one of a vehicle component
`
`(Supplemental Response 02/26/2015:
`
`pages 7-12). This argument is also not persuasive. As the preceding paragraph makes
`
`clear, one element of Ramono is not being cited for two elements of the claim language.
`
`Further, the light 146 of Ramono’s figure 8 is a status indicator type light to aid in
`
`inspections and tampering determinations (Ramono: column 11, lines 23-33). This is not
`
`Ramono’s external vehicle lights, upon which the claim's "vehicle component" reads.
`
`Finally, the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terminology is being applied.
`
`While claim 7 of the patent indicates the “vehicle component” could be an alarm system,
`
`it also indicates it could be a light system, which is the interpretation that has been
`
`applied. The patent does not offer any definition of "first control device" that precludes
`
`an alarm system. Nor does Patent Owner even assert this. Therefore, the cited prior art
`
`discloses the first control device and related signals. Again, Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`are not persuasive.
`
`Issue 2
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments (Response 01/12/2015: pages 8-10) have been fully
`
`considered but are not persuasive.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Patent Owner argues the Kniffin reference does not disclose the limitations of the
`
`claim 1
`
`including at least “a first control device, wherein said first control device one of
`
`generates and transmits a first signal for one of activating, deactivating, enabling, and
`
`disabling, one of a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle system, and a vehicle
`
`subsystem, wherein said first control device is located at the vehicle”. Patent Owner
`
`further states, “There is no intermediate control device Kniffin at the vehicle and,
`
`therefore, there is no recited first control device in Kniffin which is located at the vehicle
`
`which generates the recited first signal
`
`At least Kniffin’s figure 1 shows the first control device (element 12 and/or 30),
`
`the second control device (the clearing house) and the third control device (elements 16
`
`and 22). As explained in the corresponding sections of the specification and the request
`
`for reexamination, a user located remotely from the clearinghouse, which is itself remote
`
`from the lock 12 and lock mechanism 32, can access the lock mechanism (the lock
`
`mechanism 32 is the vehicle component; and/or element 64, figure 4). The
`
`clearinghouse and the control device 12 are the intermediate control devices between
`
`the user and the lock mechanism. Therefore, Patent Owner's argument is unpersuasive.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner argues “the vehicle access control device of Kniffin, or
`
`any components of same, cannot be and cannot serve as both the ‘first control device’
`
`and the ‘one of the vehicle component
`
`(Supplemental Response 02/26/2015: pages
`
`12-17). This argument is also not persuasive. As the preceding paragraph makes clear,
`
`one element of Kniffin is not being cited for two elements of the claim language. Further,
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terminology is being applied. As
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Patent Owner points out, claim 7 of the patent indicates the “vehicle component” could
`
`be a lock system, which is the interpretation that has been applied. The patent does not
`
`offer any definition of "first control device" that precludes various computer elements
`
`and receivers and transmitters. The instant patent does not offer a definition that
`
`indicates a vehicle component cannot be a subcomponent of another system. In fact,
`
`Kniffin's lock mechanism 32 is a “vehicle component” and so is the larger system 12, but
`
`control system 12 (or CPU 30) is also a "control device" under the ordinary meaning of
`
`the terms. Thus the claim to reference mapping illustrated above. Therefore, the cited
`
`prior art discloses the first control device and related signals. Again, Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments are not persuasive.
`
`Issue 3
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments (Response O1/12/2015: pages 11-13) have been fully
`
`considered but are not persuasive.
`
`Patent Owner argues the Ryoichi reference does not disclose the limitations of
`
`the claim 1
`
`including at least a "second control device" remote from the vehicle and
`
`responsive to a third control signal. Patent Owner further states, "Ryoichi merely
`
`discloses a telephone which transmits a radio signal which, if anything, is merely
`
`relayed unchanged to the vehicle by a communication relay system".
`
`It is noted that whether the radio signal is unchanged or not is irrelevant to the
`
`claim language, which is silent to changing the transmitted signals. At least Ryoichi's
`
`figure 1 shows the second control device (element ST). As explained in the
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`corresponding sections of the specification and the request for reexamination, a
`
`user/telephone located remotely from the telephone company’s radio station (element
`
`ST), which is itself remote from the vehicle, can control the vehicle. Therefore, Patent
`
`Owner’s argument is unpersuasive.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner argues “the fixed radio station St disclosed in Ryoichi
`
`is merely a part of, or a component of, a communication network and, therefore, it
`
`cannot be and cannot serve as the second control device of Claim 1” (Supplemental
`
`Response 02/26/2015: pages 17-21). This argument is also not persuasive. The
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terminology is being applied. The patent
`
`does not offer any definition of "second control device" that precludes a radio
`
`transmission device, such as radio St. Patent Owner has only offered vague citations
`
`from the instant patent’s specification to an apparatus being used with communications
`
`systems, yet those citations do not define what the apparatus is. And the citations do
`
`not reference the second control device or its relationship to anything, much less
`
`whether it is distinct from communications systems. Indeed, the second control device
`
`may be one way in which the "apparatus" is used in conjunction with communications
`
`systems and/or Patent Owner’s citations might be support for the second control device
`
`being part of the communications systems. Therefore, the cited prior art discloses the
`
`second control device and related signals. Again, Patent Owner’s arguments are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`Issue 4
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments (Response 01/12/2015: pages 13-15) have been fully
`
`considered but are not persuasive.
`
`Patent Owner argues the Pagliaroli reference does not disclose the limitations of
`
`the claim 1
`
`including at least a "second control device" remote from the vehicle and
`
`responsive to a third control signal. Patent Owner further states, "Pagliaroli merely
`
`discloses a telephone 48 which transmits a signal code 40 which, if anything, is merely
`
`relayed unchanged to the control unit 16 of, and located at, the vehicle".
`
`It is noted that whether the signal is unchanged or not is irrelevant to the claim
`
`language, which is silent to changing the transmitted signals. As explained in the
`
`corresponding sections of the specification and the request for reexamination, at least a
`
`user/telephone 48 (claimed third control device) located remotely from mobile telephone
`
`transmitters 46 (claimed second control device), which is itself remote from the vehicle,
`
`can operate the control unit 16 of the vehicle (claimed first control device. Therefore,
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner argues “the mobile telephone signal transmitter 46
`
`disclosed in Ryoichi is merely a part of, or a component of, a communication network
`
`and, therefore, it cannot be and cannot serve as the second control device of Claim 1”
`
`(Supplemental Response 02/26/2015: pages 22-25). This argument is also not
`
`persuasive. The ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terminology is being
`
`applied. The patent does not offer any definition of "second control device" that
`
`precludes mobile telephone transmitters 46 or ‘cellular networks‘. Patent Owner has
`
`only offered vague citations from the instant patent’s specification to an apparatus being
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`used with communications systems, yet those citations do not define what the
`
`apparatus is. And the citations do not reference the second control device or its
`
`relationship to anything, much less whether it is distinct from the communications
`
`systems. Indeed, the second control device may be one way in which the "apparatus" is
`
`used in conjunction with communications systems and/or Patent Owner’s citations might
`
`be support for the second control device being part of the communications systems.
`
`Therefore, the cited prior art discloses the second control device and related signals.
`
`Again, Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive.
`
`Second Supplemental Response of 05/1 1/15
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments (Second Supplemental Response 05/11/2015) have
`
`been fully considered but are not persuasive.
`
`First, as made clear previously, the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim
`
`language is being applied. At no point has a claim construction “broader than the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation” (Patent Owner’s term, page 3) been applied or been
`
`indicated as applied.
`
`Second, Patent Owner does not offer an actual definition of “first control device”.
`
`lnstead, Patent Owner offers non-exhaustive “exemplary embodiments", "exemplary
`
`instances", and "examples". The term “control device” only appears in the abstract and
`
`claims and never to give an actual definition. Patent Owner’s arguments give only
`
`examples and no definition. Therefore, the ordinary and customary meaning must be
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`dependent on the words "control" and "device" themselves. Patent Owner says a CPU
`
`can be, but not "is" a first control device. Patent Owner attempts to take cited examples
`
`of “vehicle component
`
`systems” as indicating such components/systems are not
`
`control devices. This is logically backwards. Such citations only demonstrate
`
`components that can be vehicle components, and say nothing about whether such
`
`components are control devices. There is no express definition of “first control device”.
`
`Third, the citations applied to the claims from both Ramono and Kniffin use
`
`separate components that are electrically connected, though it is not clear that even this
`
`low hurdle is required by the claim language. In Ramono nothing is "broken up” into
`
`pieces. In Kniffin, the CPU and LOCK MECHANISM of figure 1 are separate, just like
`
`Patent Owner’s Specification based examples. Furthermore, as both the cited prior art
`
`and Patent Owner’s specification make clear, large components/devices/systems are
`
`often composed of other components/devices/systems. Patent Owner provides no
`
`reason why the claims cannot read upon these internal components.
`
`Fourth, Patent Owner does not offer an actual definition of “second control
`
`device”. Instead, Patent Owner offers non-exhaustive “exemplary embodiments",
`
`"exemplary instances", and "examples". The term “control device” only appears in the
`
`abstract and claims and never to give an actual definition. Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`give only examples and no definition. Therefore, the ordinary and customary meaning
`
`must be dependent on the words "control" and "device" themselves. Patent Owner
`
`suggests specification language such as “apparatus may also be utilized in conjunction
`
`with a computer network” or “invention may be utilized in conjunction with any suitable
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`communication device” indicates the “second control device” cannot be part of a
`
`communication system or device. To the contrary the cited specification examples
`
`indicate that the second control device may actually be the transmitter or receiver (such
`
`as a radio or cellular phone of Ryoich or Pagliaroli) to enable the “invention” or
`
`“apparatus” to work in conjunction with communications systems. Indeed, Patent Owner
`
`only bolsters the case that the claim language reads upon the cited prior art. Note, the
`
`citations are silent to what the "second control device" actually is and instead recite the
`
`vague “apparatus” or “invention”.
`
`For all the preceding reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive.
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
`
`A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire 2 from the
`
`mailing date of this action.
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) do not apply in reexamination
`
`proceedings. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to “an applicant” and not to
`
`parties in a reexamination proceeding. Further, in 35 U.S.C. 305 and in 37 CFR
`
`1.550(a), it is required that reexamination proceedings “will be conducted with special
`
`dispatch within the Office.”
`
`Extensions of time in reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR 1.550(c). A request
`for extension of time must specify the requested period of extension and it must be accompanied by the petition
`fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g). Any request for an extension in a third party requested ex parte reexamination
`must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due, and the mere filing of a request
`will not effect any extension of time. A request for an extension of time in a third party requested ex parte
`reexamination will be granted only for sufficient cause, and for a reasonable time specified. Any request for
`extension in a patent owner requested exparte reexamination (including reexamination ordered under 35
`U.S.C. 257) for up to two months from the time period set in the Office action must be filed no later than two
`months from the expiration of the time period set in the Office action. A request for an extension in a patent
`owner requested ex parte reexamination for more than two months from the time period set in the Office action
`must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due, and the mere filing of a request
`for an extension for more than two months will not effect the extension. The time for taking action in a patent
`owner requested ex parte reexamination will not be extended for more than two months from the time period
`set in the Office action in the absence of sufficient cause or for more than a reasonable time.
`
`The filing of a timely first response to this final rejection will be construed as
`
`including a request to extend the shortened statutory period for an additional two
`
`months. In no event, however, will the statutory period for response expire later than
`
`SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final action. See MPEP § 2265.
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Extensions of Time
`
`Important Reexamination Notices
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these
`
`proceedings because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and
`
`not to parties in a reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that
`
`reexamination proceedings "will be conducted with special dispatch" (37 CFR 1.550(a)).
`
`Extension of time in ex parte reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR
`
`1.550(c).
`
`Service of Papers
`
`After filing of a request for ex parte reexamination by a third party requester, any
`
`document filed by either the patent owner or the third party requester must be served on
`
`the other party (or parties where-two or more third party requester proceedings are
`
`merged) in the reexamination proceeding in the manner provided in 37 CFR 1.248. The
`
`document must reflect service or the document may be refused consideration by the
`
`Office. See 37 CFR 1.550(f).
`
`Amendment to Reexamination Proceedings
`
`Patent Owner is notified that any proposed amendment to the specification
`
`and/or claims in this reexamination proceeding must comply with 37 CFR 1.530(d)-(j),
`
`must be formally presented pursuant to 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b), and must contain any
`
`fees required by 37 CFR 1.20(c). See MPEP 2250.
`
`18
`
`18
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`In order to ensure full consideration of any amendments, affidavits or
`
`declarations, or other documents as evidence of patentability, such documents must be
`
`submitted in response to the first Office action on the merits (which does not result in a
`
`close of prosecution). Submissions after the second Office action on the merits (which
`
`is intended to be a final action) will be governed by the requirements of 37 CFR 1.116
`
`after final rejection and 37 CFR 41.33 after appeal, such requirements will be strictly
`
`enforced. See MPEP 2250 (IV) for examples to assist in the preparation of proper
`
`proposed amendments in reexamination proceedings.
`
`Litigation Reminder
`
`The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR
`
`1.565(a) to apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent
`
`proceeding, involving Patent No. 5,917,405 throughout the course of this reexamination
`
`proceeding. The third party requester is also reminded of the ability to similarly apprise
`
`the Office of any such activity or proceeding throughout the course of this reexamination
`
`proceeding. See MPEP §§ 2207, 2282 and 2286.
`
`19
`
`19
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,300
`
`Page 19
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Correspondence Information
`
`All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be
`
`directed:
`
`By Mail to:
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAX to:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand:
`
`Customer Service Window
`
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Reexamination
`Legal Advisor or Examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding should be directed to the Central
`Reexamination Unit at telephone number (571)272-7705.
`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 form
`either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through
`Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR systems, see http://pair-directuspto.gov. For
`questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-
`217-9197 (toll-free).
`
`/William H. Wood/
`
`Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
`May 21, 2015
`
`Conferees:
`/Karin Reichle/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`/Woo H. Choi/
`
`SPRS, Art Unit 3992
`
`20
`
`20
`
`

`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`90/013,300
`
`Examiner
`WILLIAM H. WOOD
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`5917405
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`AIA (First Inventor to
`File) Status
`No
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`a.IZ Responsive to the communication(s) filed on 02/26/2015.
`D A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`b. |Z| This action is made FINAL.
`
`c. D A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire 2 month(s) from the mailing date of this letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex paite reexamination
`certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`If the period for response specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a response within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part I
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`1. El Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO—892.
`
`3. El
`
`Interview Summary, PTO—474.
`
`2.
`
`IX Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`
`4. El
`
`.
`
`Part II
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`Claims _1 are subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims 1 are not subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims j have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claims
`
`are patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Claims _1 are rejected.
`
`Claims
`
`are objected to.
`
`The drawings, filed on
`
`are acceptable.
`
`D The proposed drawing correction, filed on
`
`has been (7a) I:I approved (7b)I:I disapproved.
`
`El Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119( )—(d) or (f).
`
`a) El All
`
`b) I] Some* c) I] None
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`1a.
`
`1b.
`
`2.
`
`3 4 5
`
`.
`
`6 7 8
`
`1 El been received.
`
`2 El not been received.
`
`3 [I been filed in Application No. j
`
`4 [I been filed in reexamination Control No.
`
`5 El been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No.
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`9. El Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate 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.
`
`10. D Other:
`
`cc: Reuester (if third
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-13)
`
`Ottice Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20150115
`
`21
`
`21
`
`

`
`PTO/SB/089. (O?-OJ)
`OMB G851-0,31
`Approved for use threugh
`U.S Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COi\/ii'\/iEF€CE
`Under the Pa *erwork Reduction Act of 1995 no *ersons are re uired to resmnd to a coiiection of information unless it r;r;-ritains a valid OMB cuntroi numer.
`Substitute fur form 1449/PT-Ct
`Camp-ieie if Known
`
`STATEMENT BY AEELEEANT
`(Use as many sheets as necessary)
`
`Appiicatioh t\i-umber
`Faring Dare
`First Named inventor
`Art Unit
`Examiner N we
`
`gr}/313,333
`JULY 212044
`RA\{§V§(_)N§j A, JQAQ
`3992
`Vii‘/_
`
`Attorney Dome-.
`
`.
`
`A REEX/\t'vi-5917405
`
`U. S. PATENT DGCUMENTS
`Putttication Date
`Name of Patentee or
`lVilVi—DD-Y‘r’Y\:‘
`Appticant r;-t Cited Docurrierit
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages, Celurrms t ines, Where
`
`R-eievant F'as.sag .--b er