Reply to Office Action of February 11, 2020
`
`Application No. 15/487,058
`
`- 7 -
`
`MURASHIMA el al.
`
`Remarks
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested. Upon entry of the foregoing
`
`amendment, claims l—2 and 5—10 are pending in the application, with claims 1, 5, and 7 being the
`
`independent claims. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 3 and 4 are canceled without prejudice to the
`
`subject matter therein. New claims 8—10 are added. Based on the following remarks, Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding rejections and objections and that
`
`they be withdrawn.
`
`Supplemental Reply
`
`This reply and amendment is a supplemental reply being filed to address a typographical
`
`error in the claim amendments filed in the previous reply dated April 8, 2020 (“the previous reply”).
`
`In the previous reply, claim 1 was amended with the elements of allowed claim 4, but claim 4 was
`
`inadvertently left in the claim set (i.e., claim 4 was not amended or canceled). In addition, claim 2
`
`was inadvertently canceled in the prior reply. This supplemental reply cancels claim 4 and leaves
`
`claim 2, as-flled, in the claim set. The amendment to claim 1 containing the elements of allowed
`
`claim 4 is unchanged from the previous reply.
`
`Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner consider and enter this Supplemental
`
`Reply and Amendment. As discussed in the MPEP, Supplemental Replies may be entered by the
`
`Examiner when they address typographical errors, as is the case here. MPEP §7l4.02 (listing
`
`“typographical errors” as a reason to enter a supplemental reply). Furthermore, this Reply does not
`
`add any new argument, but merely places the Application into condition for allowance by amending
`
`allowable dependent claims into their corresponding independent claims. Id. (listing “[p]lacement of
`
`the application in condition for allowance” as a reason to enter a supplemental reply). Accordingly,
`
`this Supplemental Reply and Amendment should be considered and entered into the record.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US. Patent
`
`No. 7,073,330 to Hauser ("Hauser") in view of US. Patent No. 6,968,686 to Okada el al. ("Okada").
`
`Solely to advance prosecution and without acquiescing to the propriety of this rejection, Applicant
`
`has amended independent claim 1 with the elements of allowable claim 4. Claim 1 is therefore
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 0666.4980003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of February 11, 2020
`
`Application No. 15/487,058
`
`- 8 -
`
`MURASHIMA el al.
`
`allowable. Claim 2 is allowable for at least the same reason as claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that these rejections be withdrawn.
`
`Allowable Claims
`
`Claims 3 and 4 have been objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but
`
`allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
`
`intervening claims. The elements of claim 4 has been amended into independent claim 1 and claim
`
`4 has been canceled. Claim 3 has been canceled. Accordingly, this objection has been rendered
`
`moot and should be withdrawn.
`
`Allowed Claims
`
`Claims 5—7 were allowed. These claims have not been amended and therefore remain
`
`allowed.
`
`Newly Added Claims
`
`New claims 8—10 have been added and depend on previously allowed claim 7. Claims 8—10
`
`are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 7.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 06664980003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of February 11, 2020
`
`Application No. 15/487,058
`
`- 9 -
`
`MURASHIMA er a].
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed,
`
`accommodated, or rendered moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Examiner
`
`reconsider all presently outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn. Applicant
`
`believes that a full and complete reply has been made to the outstanding Office Action and, as such,
`
`the present application is in condition for allowance. If the Examiner believes, for any reason, that
`
`personal communication will expedite prosecution of this application, the Examiner is invited to
`
`telephone the undersigned at the number provided.
`
`Prompt and favorable consideration of this Amendment and Reply is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`/Mark W. Rygiel/
`
`Mark W. Rygiel
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 45,871
`
`Date:
`
`April 17, 2020
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW.
`Washington, DC. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`13635867_1.docx
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 0666.4980003
`
`