DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 14 are amended. Claims 6 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20, as filed 11 November 2025, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited reference Kosugi does not teach or suggest “the battery comprises a first surface and two second surfaces, the first surface is provided with electrode terminals, and its two ends along the first direction are respectively connected to the two second surfaces, which are arranged opposite each other along the first direction; the battery module further comprises two insulation elements, the two insulation elements are respectively arranged on both sides of the plurality of batteries along the first direction and are adhered to the two second surfaces of each battery in the plurality of batteries; a size of the battery in the second direction is W a size of the first limiting portion in the second direction is H, and H≤W/20".
Specifically, Applicant argues that in Kosugi, only one insulating plate 14 is provided, and the insulating plate 14 is equipped with terminal holes 15 that allow the voltage terminals 5 to penetrate through; whereas in the present application, the electrode terminals 13b are arranged on the first wall, and the insulating elements 3 are arranged on the second wall. The first wall and the second wall are arranged in different directions, respectively. Therefore, the positional relationship between the electrode terminals and the insulating elements in the present application is different from that in Kosugi, and in the present application, there are two insulating elements 3, which are arranged on two oppositely arranged second walls, respectively; Secondly, in Kosugi, the insulating plate 14 achieves connection with the battery by allowing the voltage terminal 5 to penetrate through the terminal hole 15, whereas in the present application, the insulating element 3 achieves connection with the battery through bonding. Finally, based on the second point, if the insulating plate 14 in Kosugi is not connected to the battery through bonding, then the numerical limitation of H≤W/20 does not applv to D1. In this application, if H>W/20, the size H of the first limiting portion 22 in the second direction Y is too large, resulting in a portion of the battery 1 side corresponding to the first limiting portion 22 that is too large, and a portion of the battery 1 side that can be bonded to the insulating element 3 is too short. This can lead to poor bonding between the insulating element 3 and the battery 1, or even prevent the insulating element 3 from being bonded to the battery 1, resulting in wear on the protective film on the surface of the battery 1, thereby causing insulation failure of the battery 1. For Kosugi, in order to electrically connect the various parts of the circuit board to the voltage terminals 5, and to electrically connect the voltage terminals 5 to each other, what is important is the degree of compatibility between the terminal hole 15 and the voltage terminal 5. If the compatibility is high, there is no need to limit the size ratio of H and W to achieve high bonding effect. If the compatibility is low, even limiting the size ratio of H and W is meaningless. In short, D1 does not need to limit the size ratio of H and W at all. This is not persuasive in light of a newly cited reference, Kume, and in light of an additional citation from Kosugi.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosugi (US 20100151313 A1) in view of Kume (US 20120003526 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Kosugi teaches a battery module (FIG. 1 module 22), comprising a plurality of batteries (FIG. 9 battery 1) and a buffer element ([0023] and FIG. 3 spacer 6);
the plurality of batteries are arranged side by side along a second direction; (As shown FIG. 2, 9, FIG. 10, the “up” direction)
the buffer element is arranged between two adjacent batteries and has a main body portion ([0023]-[0024], FIG. 2, FIG. 3, FIG. 7 spacer 6), a first limiting portion and a second limiting portion ([0024] and FIG. 2 – FIG. 3 projections 7);
the main body portion is provided with an opening penetratingly along the second direction, ([0024] and FIG. 3 through holes 8) the first limiting portion and the second limiting portion are located at both ends of the main body portion in a first direction, respectively, and are arranged at intervals from the opening, and the first limiting portion and the second limiting portion are connected to the main body portion and protrude from the main body portion in the second direction; and ([0024] and FIG. 3 projections 7);
a battery faces the opening in the second direction and abuts against the main body portion, and the battery is located between the first limiting portion and the second limiting portion in the first direction; (As shown FIG. 2)
the battery comprises a first surface and two second surfaces, the first surface is provided with electrode terminals, and its two ends (Side surfaces 13) along the first direction are respectively connected to the two second surfaces, which are arranged opposite each other along the first direction; (as shown FIG. 1 18, 19 and FIG. 9, FIG. 10 terminals 5).
Kosugi teaches (FIG. 12, [0026] insulating plate 14 is made of e.g. epoxy resin … and has a plurality of terminal holes through which the voltage terminals 5 penetrate the insulating plate.) Examiner notes that epoxy used to protect terminals is commonly cured in place, which creates bonding its substrate, e.g. the batteries. At [0024] Kosugi teaches that plates 10 can be made of an electrically insulating material, however Kosugi does not explicitly teach the two insulation elements are respectively arranged on both sides of the plurality of batteries along the first direction and are adhered to the two second surfaces of each battery in the plurality of batteries.
Kume, in the field of (abstract) a battery array with battery stacks, discloses FIG. 7, FIG. 10 insulating layer 16 which is between the cell housing and binding bar 4. At [0038] Kume discloses that
coating can also be used for the insulating layer 16. The surface of the metal external case 11
of each rectangular battery cell 1 is insulated by an insulating layer 16, and short circuit is prevented between the external casing 12 and the metal-plate binding bars 4. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add the insulating coating of Kume to each side of the cell stack of Kosugi, with a reasonable expectation of preventing shorting.
Returning to Kosugi, at [0023] Kosugi teaches that the purpose of the projections is to retain the corner portions of the plurality of unit batteries 1 on spacer 6. The size of the first limitation portion (projections 6, 11) of Kosugi is not particularly limited, though by inspection of FIG. 10 it can be inferred that the limiting portion should be less than or equal to ½ of the height of the battery 3, to allow for contact between the top and bottom surfaces of battery 3 and spacer 6, and it can be inferred that the minimum height of the projection (where H is the height of the projection and W is the size of the battery in the second direction (height)) is just enough to retain the battery, in light of the stacked structure and spacers of FIG. 10 and [0023], which appears to, at least, overlap the claimed range of H ≤ W / 20. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to have selected the overlapping part of the range with a reasonable expectation that such selection would lead to successful spacing and retention of the batteries.
Further regarding the limitations of claim 14, Kosugi teaches the battery pack (abstract) comprising: a box body (FIG.1 #17 and [0028] “The outer peripheral portions of the upper/lower plates 10 sandwiching the entire arrangement of unit cell batteries 1 is covered by, e.g., a heat-shrinkable shrink tube 22.”).
Regarding claim 3, Kosugi in view of Kume teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Kosugi further teaches wherein the first limiting portion, and the second limiting portion are arranged to be diametrically opposite to each other or arranged in a misalignment manner in the third direction. (As shown FIG. 3 projections 7) Examiner notes that where alternative limitations are present, the claim can be met with a reference for just one of the alternative limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Kosugi in view of Kume teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, wherein the buffer element further has a third limiting portion, the third limiting portion is connected to the main body portion and protrudes from the main body portion in the second direction, and the third limiting portion supports the corresponding battery in the third direction. (As shown FIG. 3 projections 7, which support in both the first and third directions.)
Regarding claim 12, Kosugi in view of Kume teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Kosugi further teaches wherein the buffer element is made of a hard material. ([0023] polypropylene)
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7-8, 15-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosugi (US 20100151313 A1) in view of Kume (US 20120003526 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4, and 14 above, and in further view of Park (US 20140120391 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 15 Kosugi in view of Kume teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kosugi does not explicitly teach wherein the first limiting portion spans the entire main body portion in a third direction; and/or the second limiting portion spans the entire main body portion in the third direction.
Park, in (abstract) the field of frames for battery assembly, discloses ([0028] and FIG. 2) barrier 20 (equivalent to buffer element) which has side panels 22, which spans the entire main body portion in the third direction. Park discloses ([0007-0008] the use of battery frame supports for stably supporting batteries and minimizing variation in relative position.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify obvious to modify the buffer element of Kosugi to include side panels 22 of Park, with a reasonable expectation of successfully stable supporting the battery and minimizing variation in relative position.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Kosugi in view of Kume teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Kosugi does not explicitly teach wherein the third limiting portion spans the entire main body portion in the first direction and is connected to the first limiting portion and the second limiting portion; or the third limiting portion is formed at both ends of the main body portion in the first direction, and the first limiting portion and the second limiting portion are connected to a corresponding third limiting portion, respectively.
Park, in (abstract) the field of frames for battery assembly, teaches ([0028] and FIG. 2 barrier 20) which has lower panel 25, which spans the entire main body portion in the third direction and is connected to the left and right barriers. Park teaches ([0007-0008] the use of battery frame supports for stably supporting batteries and minimizing variation in relative position.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify Kosugi’s spacer with the continuous barrier 20 as shown in FIG. 2, with a reasonable expectation of successfully supporting the battery and minimizing variation in relative position.
Regarding claim 7, Kosugi in view of Kume teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Kosugi further teaches wherein the battery comprises an electrode assembly ([0027] positive and negative electrodes) and a housing ([0007] battery case) accommodating the electrode assembly;
Examiner notes that Kosugi is silent about the radius of the battery housing. Therefore, Kosugi does not explicitly teach that the housing is formed with a first fillet, and a radius of the first fillet is R1; and a size of the first limiting portion in the second direction is H, and R1<H.
Park teaches ([0035], FIG. 1) barriers 20 (equivalent to buffer element) for use with a stack of batteries 30, and at [0052] “the batteries may be stably supported by using a simple structure.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if the housing of modified Kosugi has too large a radius compared to the height of the projecting part, it will not be possible to stably support the battery. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of selecting a radius within the claimed range for the battery housing of modified Kosugi, thus meeting the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Kosugi in view of Kume and Park teaches all of the limitations as set forth above.
Examiner notes that while Kosugi is silent on how spacer 6 is assembled and does not explicitly disclose that the projections of spacer 6 are assembled by welding, that welding is a common method of securing metal objects together, and welding is known to create a fillet. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would expect that spacer 6 of Kosugi could have a fillet. However, Kosugi does not explicitly teach that wherein a junction between the first limiting portion and the main body portion is formed with a second fillet, and a radius of the second fillet is R2, and R1 ≤ R2.
Park teaches ([0035], FIG. 1) barriers 20 (equivalent to buffer element) for use with a stack of batteries 30, and at [0052] “the batteries may be stably supported by using a simple structure.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if the fillet of modified Kosugi is larger than the projecting part, it will not be possible to stably support the battery. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of selecting a fillet within the claimed range for the spacer of modified Kosugi, thus meeting the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Kosugi in view of Kume teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Kosugi further teaches wherein the battery comprises an electrode assembly ([0027] positive and negative electrodes) and a housing ([0007] battery case) accommodating the electrode assembly;
Examiner notes that Kosugi is silent about the radius of the battery housing. Therefore, Kosugi does not explicitly teach that the housing is formed with a first fillet, and a radius of the first fillet is R1; and a size of the first limiting portion in the second direction is H, and R1<H.
Park teaches ([0035], FIG. 1) barriers 20 (equivalent to buffer element) for use with a stack of batteries 30, and at [0052] “the batteries may be stably supported by using a simple structure.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if the housing of modified Kosugi has too large a radius compared to the height of the projecting part, it will not be possible to stably support the battery. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of selecting a radius within the claimed range for the battery housing of modified Kosugi, thus meeting the instant claim limitation.
Examiner notes that while Kosugi is silent on how spacer 6 is assembled and does not explicitly disclose that the projections of spacer 6 are assembled by welding, that welding is a common method of securing metal objects together, and welding is known to create a fillet. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would expect that spacer 6 of Kosugi could have a fillet. However, Kosugi does not explicitly teach that wherein a junction between the first limiting portion and the main body portion is formed with a second fillet, and a radius of the second fillet is R2, and R1 ≤ R2.
Park teaches ([0035], FIG. 1) barriers 20 (equivalent to buffer element) for use with a stack of batteries 30, and at [0052] “the batteries may be stably supported by using a simple structure.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if the fillet of modified Kosugi is larger than the projecting part, it will not be possible to stably support the battery. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of selecting a fillet within the claimed range of radius for the spacer of modified Kosugi, thus rendering obvious the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 20, Kosugi in view of Kume teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Kosugi does not explicitly teach a vehicle comprising the battery module according to claim 1, and the battery module is configured to supply electric energy to the vehicle. Park, in (abstract) the field of frames for battery assembly is determined to be suitable ([0024]) for use in an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to use the battery of Kosugi in an electric vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, based on the teachings of Park.
Claim(s) 9-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosugi (US 20100151313 A1) in view of Kume (US 20120003526 A1), as set forth in claims 1 and 4, above, and in further view of Mizuta (US 20140205869 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kosugi in view of Kume teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kosugi further teaches wherein the battery comprises the electrode assembly and the housing accommodating the electrode assembly; ([0027] positive and negative electrodes, [0007] rectangular-solid shaped sealed type metal battery case)
Regarding the limitation the electrode assembly has a body portion, a first corner portion and a second corner portion, the first corner portion and the second corner portion are located at both sides of the body portion in the first direction, respectively, and the first corner portion and the second corner portion are connected to the body portion and protrude from the body portion in the first direction. Kosugi teaches [0007] a rectangular-solid shaped sealed type metal battery case. The above limitation is met by a “jelly roll” or “rolled type” electrode, and not met by the rectangular-solid shaped sealed type metal battery case of Kosugi.
Mizuta teaches (abstract) an assembled battery including (FIG. 6) holding member 10 (equivalent to the buffer element). Mizuta at [0225] discloses that the battery used with the holding member may be either a stacked or a winding type (equivalent to a rolled electrode assembly). At [0028] Mizuta contemplates that the plates 10 (holding member) enhances reliability.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select a winding type electrode for the battery of modified Kosugi, as it is one of two types of battery electrode contemplated to be successful with the buffer element as taught by modified Kosugi, with a reasonable expectation of enhancing reliability.
Regarding the limitation a distance between a junction of the first corner portion and the body portion and an outer side surface corresponding to the housing in the first direction is L1, and a distance between a junction of the second corner portion and the body portion and the outer side surface corresponding to the housing in the first direction is L2; the main body portion of the buffer element has an inner peripheral surface enclosing the opening, and the inner peripheral surface comprises a first surface and a second surface, and the first surface and the second surface are arranged oppositely in the first direction; and the first surface is close to the first limiting portion and a distance between the first surface and the first limiting portion in the first direction is W, the second surface is close to the second limiting portion and a distance between the second surface and the second limiting portion in the first direction is W2, and W1≤ L1 W2 ≤ L2. Referring to FIG. 3 of the instant invention, this limitation seems to require that the opening of the buffer element is larger than the “flat” body part of the electrode. The buffer element with opening is taught by Kosugi as set forth in claim 1. At [0028] Kosugi contemplates protecting the battery module from mechanical impact. Kosugi does not explicitly teach the above limitation. However, the above limitation essentially requires the opening in the buffer element to be slightly larger than the flat body portion of the battery module, allowing the rounded part of the battery module to be slight supported by the edges of the buffer element opening. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to select dimensions such that the rounded part of the battery module of modified Kosugi is slightly supported by the edges of the buffer element opening, as this selection would be expected to help prevent lateral displacement of the battery in the case of an impact.
Regarding claim 10, Kosugi in view of Kume and Mizuta teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kosugi does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between the body portion and a lower surface of the housing in the third direction (Z) is L3 , and a distance between the body portion and an upper surface of the housing in the third direction (Z) is L4; the inner peripheral surface further comprises a third surface and a fourth surface, and the third surface and the fourth surface are arranged oppositely in the third direction; and the third surface is close to the third limiting portion and a distance between the third surface and the third limiting portion in the third direction is a distance between the fourth surface and an upper surface of the main body portion in the third direction is W4, and W3 ≤ L3, W4 ≤ L4.
Referring to FIG. 4 and FIG. 7 of the instant application, this limitation seems to require that in the “Z” direction, the opening of the buffer element is larger than the “flat” body part of the electrode. The buffer element with opening is taught by Kosugi as set forth in claim 1. At [0028] Kosugi contemplates protecting the battery module from mechanical impact. Kosugi does not explicitly teach the above limitation. However, the above limitation essentially requires the opening in the buffer element to be slightly larger than the flat body portion of the battery module, allowing the rounded part of the battery module to be slight supported by the edges of the buffer element opening. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to select dimensions such that the rounded part of the battery module of modified Kosugi is slightly supported by the edges of the buffer element opening, as this selection would be expected to help prevent lateral displacement of the battery in the case of an impact.
Regarding claim 13, Kosugi in view of Kume teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kosugi does not explicitly teach wherein a surface of each battery facing the opening is provided with a bonding adhesive, and the bonding adhesive is located at an inner side of the main body portion and is arranged close to the main body portion.
Mizuta teaches (abstract) an assembled battery including (FIG. 6) holding member 10 (equivalent to the buffer element). Mizuta at [0240] discloses the use of double sided tape to fill a space between battery and spacer, and at [0028] Mizuta contemplates that this enhances reliability. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to use the tape of Mizuta, with the battery module of modified Kosugi, with a reasonable expectation of successfully securing the battery and enhancing reliability.
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosugi (US 20100151313 A1) in view of Kume (US 20120003526 A1) and Park (US 20140120391 A1), as set forth in claims 7 and 16, and in further view of Mizuta (US 20140205869 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kosugi in view of Kume and Park teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kosugi does not explicitly teach wherein the electrode assembly is a rolled electrode assembly.
Mizuta teaches (abstract) an assembled battery including (FIG. 6) holding member 10 (equivalent to the buffer element). Mizuta at [0225] discloses that the battery used with the holding member may be either a stacked or a winding type (equivalent to a rolled electrode assembly). At [0028] Mizuta contemplates that the holding member system enhances reliability
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select a winding type electrode for the battery of modified Kosugi, as it is one of two types of battery electrode contemplated to be successful with the buffer element as taught by modified Kosugi, with a reasonable expectation of enhancing reliability.
Regarding claim 19, Kosugi in view of Kume and Park teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kosugi further teaches wherein the battery comprises the electrode assembly and the housing accommodating the electrode assembly; ([0027] positive and negative electrodes, [0007] battery case)
Regarding the limitation the electrode assembly has a body portion, a first corner portion and a second corner portion, the first corner portion and the second corner portion are located at both sides of the body portion in the first direction, respectively, and the first corner portion and the second corner portion are connected to the body portion and protrude from the body portion in the first direction. This limitation is met by a “jelly roll” type battery.
Mizuta teaches (abstract) an assembled battery including (FIG. 6) holding member 10 (equivalent to the buffer element). Mizuta at [0225] discloses that the battery used with the holding member may be either a stacked or a winding type (equivalent to a rolled electrode assembly). At [0028] Mizuta contemplates that the holding member system enhances reliability
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select a winding type electrode for the battery of modified Kosugi, as it is one of two types of battery electrode contemplated to be successful with the buffer element as taught by modified Kosugi, with a reasonable expectation of enhancing reliability.
Regarding the limitation a distance between a junction of the first corner portion and the body portion and an outer side surface corresponding to the housing in the first direction is L1, and a distance between a junction of the second corner portion and the body portion and the outer side surface corresponding to the housing in the first direction is L2; the main body portion of the buffer element has an inner peripheral surface enclosing the opening, and the inner peripheral surface comprises a first surface and a second surface, and the first surface and the second surface are arranged oppositely in the first direction; and the first surface is close to the first limiting portion and a distance between the first surface and the first limiting portion in the first direction is W, the second surface is close to the second limiting portion and a distance between the second surface and the second limiting portion in the first direction is W2, and W1≤ L1 W2 ≤ L2. Referring to FIG. 3 of the instant invention, this limitation seems to require that the opening of the buffer element is larger than the “flat” body part of the electrode. The buffer element with opening is taught by Kosugi as set forth in claim 1. At [0028] Kosugi contemplates protecting the battery module from mechanical impact. Kosugi does not explicitly teach the above limitation. However, the above limitation essentially requires the opening in the buffer element to be slightly larger than the flat body portion of the battery module, allowing the rounded part of the battery module to be slight supported by the edges of the buffer element opening. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to select dimensions such that the rounded part of the battery module of modified Kosugi is slightly supported by the edges of the buffer element opening, as this selection would be expected to help prevent lateral displacement of the battery in the case of an impact.
Kosugi does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between the body portion and a lower surface of the housing in the third direction (Z) is L3 , and a distance between the body portion and an upper surface of the housing in the third direction (Z) is L4; the inner peripheral surface further comprises a third surface and a fourth surface, and the third surface and the fourth surface are arranged oppositely in the third direction; and the third surface is close to the third limiting portion and a distance between the third surface and the third limiting portion in the third direction is a distance between the fourth surface and an upper surface of the main body portion in the third direction is W4, and W3 ≤ L3, W4 ≤ L4.
Referring to FIG. 4 and FIG. 7 of the instant application, this limitation seems to require that in the “Z” direction, the opening of the buffer element is larger than the “flat” body part of the electrode. The buffer element with opening is taught by Kosugi as set forth in claim 1. At [0028] Kosugi contemplates protecting the battery module from mechanical impact. Kosugi does not explicitly teach the above limitation. However, the above limitation essentially requires the opening in the buffer element to be slightly larger than the flat body portion of the battery module, allowing the rounded part of the battery module to be slight supported by the edges of the buffer element opening. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to select dimensions such that the rounded part of the battery module of modified Kosugi is slightly supported by the edges of the buffer element opening, as this selection would be expected to help prevent lateral displacement of the battery in the case of an impact.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751