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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-16, cancelled claim 17 and added new claim 21. Thus, claims 1-16, and 18-21 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
All of the rejections (i.e., 102 and 103) of the claims over Pasma are withdrawn in view of the amendments. The rejections of claims 8, 12-14, and 17 over Li are also withdrawn in view of the amendments. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Applicant arguments with respect to the 102 rejection of claims 1, 7, 16, and 18-19 over Li are not persuasive; these rejections are maintained. The 103 rejection of claim 20 over Li and Lu are also maintained since the arguments related to Li are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Li is silent on various portions (i.e., first edge coupled to the first portion, second edge coupled to the second portion, an additional interface between the first edge and second edge, and the additional interface coupled to the third portion of the flange). Applicant also argues Li does not disclose the “flush” nature of the edge of the flange and edges of the cover. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
950
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li shows enclosure 100 (film 100a in Fig 3) includes two halves (e.g., base and cover, labelled in annotated Fig. 3) folded at edge 11 (see Fig. 4); upon folding, the enclosure 100 is sealed via folded edge 11 and a sealing part 30 at edges 13, 15, and 17, see e.g., Fig. 4. The sealing part 30 is formed by overlapping the flange of the base (labelled in annotated Fig. 3) and the edge of the cover (labelled in annotated Fig. 3) to form a seal 31 (Figs. 4-5 show seals at each of the edges 13, 15, 17, where seal 31 is present at edge 13). Based on Fig. 3, it is understood that seal 31 is formed through the overlap of the flange of the base and the edge of the cover; provided the flange of the base and the edge of the cover have the same width/length (see double headed arrows in annotated Fig. 3), the edge of the flange (of the base) and the edge of the edge (of the cover) are expected to be flush (labelled “flush edges”) when the flange (of the base) and the edge (of the cover) are overlayed to form seal 31, see annotated Fig. 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
390
593
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Like enclosure 100a, the enclosure 100 of Fig. 8 also appears to have two halves folded at edge 11 and a sealing part 30 around the other sides (13, 15, 17) of the L shaped enclosure. Fig. 8 shows seal 31 extending from fold 11 to seal 35; in other words, seal 31 extends along the 1st wall, the interface, the 2nd wall, and the edge encompassing the tabs 91, 93, see annotated Fig. 8.
PNG
media_image3.png
503
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Based on what is known about seal 31 (as set forth in Figs. 3 and 5, and detailed above), the enclosure of Fig. 8 is expected to include a base with flanges (i.e., first portion at the first wall, a second portion at the second wall, and a third portion at the interface), and a cover with edges (i.e., first edge at the first wall, second edge at the second wall, and an additional interface between the first edge and the second edge of the cover); since the flange of the base and edge of the cover overlap to form seal 31, Li suggests the first edge (of the cover) is coupled to the first portion of the flange of the base, and second edge of the cover is coupled to the second portion of the flange of the base, and the third portion (i.e., flange in the notch in the interface of the base, located between the first portion and the second portion of the flange) coupled to the additional interface (located between the first edge and second edge of the cover), thereby forming seal 31 of the enclosure in Fig. 8. Further, as with the enclosure of Figs. 3 and 5, the flange of Fig. 8 is expected to includes an edge extending along the flange and an edge extending along the edge of the edge of the cover, as shown in Fig. 3 and 5; provided the flange of the base and the edge of the cover have the same width/length (see double headed arrows in annotated Fig. 3), the edge of the flange (of the base) and the edge of the edge (of the cover) are expected to be flush (labelled “flush edges”) when the flange (of the base) and the edge (of the cover) are overlayed to form seal 31, as evidence by Figs. 3, and 5. In view of the foregoing, Li reads on the features of claims 1 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected because the second arcuate portion (e.g., 102) is not coupled to and between the first arcuate portion (100) and the third arcuate portion (104), as recited in claims 6 and 8; rather, the third arcuate portion (104) is coupled to and between the first arcuate portion (100) and the second arcuate portion (102), see instant Fig. 4 and the published disclosure at [0038]; further, the instant disclosure describes the third radius of the third arcuate portion is greater (different) than the first arcuate portion, the second arcuate portion, or both. Thus, the features of claims 6 and 8 are new matter. Claims 9-15 depend from claim 8, thus are also rejected. The claims are interpreted based on instant Fig. 4 and instant published para. [0038], where the third arcuate portion is coupled to and between the first arcuate portion and the second arcuate portion, and the third radius (of the third arcuate portion) is different/greater than the first radius (of the first arcuate portion), the second radius (of the second arcuate portion), or both.
Claim 13 is problematic for the same reasons detailed in claims 6 and 8; specifically, the location of the additional third arcuate portion with respect to the additional first arcuate portion and the additional second arcuate portion, and radii thereof, is new matter. Examiner interprets claim 13 such that an additional third arcuate portion (of the cover) is coupled to the third arcuate portion (of the base); the additional third arcuate portion extends between the additional first arcuate portion and the additional second arcuate portion (of the cover), and the additional third radius (of the additional third arcuate portion) is greater than the additional first radius (of the additional first arcuate portion), the additional second radius (of the additional second arcuate portion), or both.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Regarding the configured to language of the claims (e.g., “configured to concentrate stress …”, etc.), when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, MPEP 2112.01. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 16, 18-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO2023164939 (translated by US 2024/0429508), hereinafter Ma. Fig. 2 of Ma is annotated to highlight various features.
PNG
media_image4.png
808
1087
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Ma suggests an electronic enclosure (e.g., 10, Fig. 2), comprising: a base (e.g., 12); a first wall (see “1st wall” in annotated Fig. 2) of the base (e.g., 12), the first wall (i.e., “1st wall”) extending along a first direction (see “1st D” in annotated Fig. 2); a second wall (see “2nd wall” in annotated Fig. 2) of the base (e.g., 12), the second wall (“2nd wall”) extending along a second direction (see “2nd D" in annotated Fig. 2) crosswise to the first direction, wherein the first wall and the second wall cooperatively define at least a portion of an internal volume (e.g., 10a) of the electronic enclosure (best seen in Fig. 2, see also [0050, 0054]); an interface (annotated in Fig. 2) of the base (e.g., 12), wherein the interface is formed between the first wall and the second wall such that the first wall and the second wall extend from one another via the interface, and wherein the interface comprises a notch (see annotated Fig. 2) configured to concentrate stress caused by pressure buildup within the internal volume (note: a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim), a flange (e.g., 10b, and 12a, 121,122, 102, etc.), see Figs. 1-2) of the base (e.g., 12), the flange comprising a first portion (121) extending from the first wall, a second portion (122) extending from the second wall, and a third portion (i.e., labelled “3rd portion” in annotated Fig. 2) extending from the notch of the interface formed between the first wall and the second wall; a cover (e.g., 11); a first edge (e.g., 101 of 111) of the cover (e.g., 11), the first edge (101 of 111) extending along the first direction (e.g., “1st D” in annotated Fig. 2) and coupled (via 101a) to the first portion (121) of the flange (of the base 12), a second edge (e.g., 112) of the cover (e.g., 11), the second edge (e.g., 112) extending along the second direction (e.g., “2nd D” in annotated Fig. 2) and coupled (via 102a) to the second portion (e.g., 122) of the flange (of the base 12): and an additional interface (e.g., see annotated Fig. 2) formed between the first edge (e.g., 111) and the second edge (e.g., 112) such that the first edge and the second edge extend from one another via the additional interface, wherein the additional interface comprises an additional notch aligned with the notch, and wherein the additional interface is coupled to the third portion of the flange (via seal 10b), see Figs. 1-2, [0056-0057].
Regarding Claim 2, Ma suggests the notch comprises an arcuate portion extending from the first wall to the second wall, see Figs.
Regarding Claim 3, Ma suggests an edge of the flange is flush with the first edge of the cover, the second edge of the cover, and an additional edge of the cover corresponding to the additional interface, see Figs. 1-2 and [0056].
Regarding Claims 4 and 21, Ma suggests a coupling feature (i.e., seal 10b) between the cover and the flange of the base. Further, Ma suggests Dmin (i.e., the width between 102 and 104) is ≥1, see e.g., [0060-0061]. Thus, when Dmin is 1 the coupling feature (i.e., seal 10b) is located 0.1 to 0.6 mm away from the edge of the flange and additional edge of the cover (i.e., 102).
Regarding Claim 7, Ma suggests the first wall and the second wall extend from one another via the interface to arrange the electronic enclosure in an L-shape configuration, see Figs.
Regarding Claim 16, Ma suggests an electronic enclosure (e.g., Figs. 1-4) comprising a base (e.g., 12) having a first wall (e.g., 121), a second wall (122), a first interface extending between the first wall and the second wall (i.e., “interface, notch” in annotated Fig. 2), a flange (e.g., 10b, see Fig. 1) extending from the first wall, the second wall, and the first interface (see Fig. 2), and an edge extending along the flange (e.g., 101, 102, 103), wherein the first interface forms a first notch (see Figs. 1-4); and a cover (e.g., 11) having a first edge, a second edge, and a second interface extending between the first edge and the second edge (e.g., 101, 102, 103 on cover 11, see Fig. 3), wherein the second interface forms a second notch (see Figs. 1-2); wherein the base and the cover are coupled to one another in an assembled configuration of the electronic enclosure to enclose an internal volume (10a) of the electronic enclosure and such that the edge of the flange is flush with the first edge of the cover, the second edge of the cover, and an additional edge of the cover corresponding to the second interface of the cover (see e.g., Figs. 1-4), and wherein the first notch and the second notch are configured to concentrate stress caused by pressure buildup in the internal volume, thereby facilitating relief of the pressure buildup from within the electronic enclosure at the first notch and the second notch.
Regarding Claim 18, Ma suggests the first wall and the second wall extend to opposite ends of the first notch, and the first edge and the second edge extend to opposite ends of the second notch, see Figs. 1-2.
Regarding Claim 19, Ma suggests the base (12) comprises a third wall extending from the first wall (see e.g., Figs. 1-2), the cover comprises a third edge extending from the first edge (111), and the first notch and the second notch are configured to divert stress concentration away from the third wall and the third edge to the first interface and the second interface, respectively, during the pressure buildup in the internal volume
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Clapp 2018 NPL (iPhone XS Has an Upgrade Apple Didn’t Mention - iFixit, published online on 21 September 2018), hereinafter Clapp. See the 112(a) rejection for the claim interpretation of claim 8. A figure from Clapp is annotated to highlight various claimed features.
PNG
media_image5.png
319
187
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure from Clapp
Regarding Claim 8, Clapp suggests an electronic enclosure, comprising: an arcuate segment comprising a first arcuate portion having a first radius, a second arcuate portion having a second radius, and a third arcuate portion having a third radius, wherein the THIRD arcuate portion is coupled to and between the first arcuate portion and the SECOND arcuate portion, and wherein the THIRD radius is greater than the first radius, the SECOND radius, or both; a first wall extending from the first arcuate portion; and a second wall extending from the THIRD arcuate portion; wherein the first wall, the second wall, and the arcuate segment cooperatively define at least a portion of an internal volume of the electronic enclosure, and the arcuate segment is configured to concentrate stress caused by pressure buildup within the internal volume.
Regarding Claim 9, Clapp suggests a third wall extending from the first wall, wherein the arcuate segment is configured to divert stress away from the third wall during the pressure buildup within the internal volume.
Regarding Claim 10, Clapp suggests the first wall and the second wall are oriented generally perpendicular to one another.
Regarding Claim 11, Clapp suggests the first wall spans a first dimension in a first direction, the second wall spans a second dimension in a second direction, and the first dimension and the second dimension are different from one another.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (WO 2021196027, translated with US 2023/0037967, of record), hereinafter Li. Please see the Response to Arguments section for more details.
Fig. 5
PNG
media_image6.png
435
1164
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8
PNG
media_image7.png
889
1087
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Li suggests an electronic enclosure (e.g., 200, 100a), Figs. 3, 6-8 ), comprising a base comprising a first wall (1st wall) extending along a first direction, a second wall (2nd wall) extending along a second direction crosswise (i.e., perpendicular) to the first direction (see annotated Fig. 8), wherein the first wall and the second wall cooperatively define at least a portion of an internal volume of the electronic enclosure, and an interface (see annotated Fig. 8) formed between the first wall and the second wall such that the first wall and the second wall extend from one another via the interface, wherein the interface comprises a notch. The first wall and the second wall extend from one another via the interface to arrange the electronic enclosure in an L-shape configuration, see Fig. 8. Further, Li suggests the base comprises a flange comprising a first portion extending from the first wall, a second portion extending from the second wall, and a third portion extending from the notch of the interface formed between the first wall and the second wall, a cover comprising a first edge extending along the first direction and coupled to the first portion of the flange, a second edge extending along the second direction and coupled to the second portion of the flange, and an additional interface formed between the first edge and the second edge such that the first edge and the second edge extend from one another via the additional interface, wherein the additional interface comprises an additional notch aligned with the notch, and wherein the additional interface is coupled to the third portion of the flange, see Response to Arguments section for details.
Regarding Claim 16, Li suggests an electronic enclosure (200, Figs. 7-8) made from a packaging film (100a, see Fig. 3) that is folded at a first edge 11 (see Figs. 4-5, 7-8), thereby forming a base and cover (see annotated Fig. 5). Li suggests the base having a first wall, a second wall, and a first interface extending between the first wall and the second wall (see annotated Figs. 5 and Fig. 8, where Fig. 5 shows how wall is interpreted for the base, and Fig. 8 shows the location of the walls and 1st interface), a flange extending from the first wall, the second wall, and the first interface, and an edge extending along the flange, wherein the first interface forms a first notch (best seen in e.g., Figs. 7-8) and the cover having a first edge, a second edge, and a second interface extending between the first edge and the second edge (see annotated Figs. 5 and 8, where annotated Fig. 5 shows how edges are interpreted for the cover, and Fig. 8 shows the location of the edges and 2nd interface), wherein the second interface forms a second notch (best seen in Figs. 7-8); wherein the base and the cover are coupled to one another in an assembled configuration (e.g., seal 31, see Figs. 5 and 8) of the electronic enclosure to enclose an internal volume of the electronic enclosure, and such that the edge of the flange is flush with the first edge of the cover, the second edge of the cover, and an additional edge of the cover corresponding to the second interface of the cover, and wherein the first notch and the second notch are configured to concentrate stress caused by pressure buildup in the internal volume, thereby facilitating relief of the pressure buildup from within the electronic enclosure at the first notch and the second notch (see Response to Arguments section for details).
Regarding Claim 18, Li suggests the first wall and the second wall extend to opposite ends of the first notch (see 1st interface), and the first edge and the second edge extend to opposite ends of the second notch (see 2nd interface), see Fig. 8.
Regarding Claim 19, Li suggests the base comprises a third wall (e.g., along fold 11) extending from the first wall, the cover comprises a third edge (e.g., along fold 11) extending from the first edge, and the first notch and the second notch are configured to divert stress concentration away from the third wall and the third edge to the first interface and the second interface, respectively, during the pressure buildup in the internal volume.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Yamashita JP 2010086744, hereinafter Yamashita.
Regarding Claim 5, Ma does not explicitly disclose the coupling feature (10b) comprises a welded interface, an adhesive, or a brazed material. However, Yamashita suggests a packaging material (20, 30) housing includes a heat-adhesive resin layer (15, 35) in the seal region (20a, 60a), thereby enabling a hermetically sealed housing with electrolyte and gas permeation resistance, see abstract, [0009-0011, 0021-0023], and Figs 1-10. Considering Ma seeks to form a hermetic seal ([0056]), it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the coupling feature (seal 10b) of Ma includes an adhesive with the expectation of hermetically sealing the housing and securing electrolyte and gas permeation resistance.
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Clapp 2018 NPL (cited earlier). See the 112(a) rejection for the interpretation of claim 6, 8 and 13.
Regarding Claim 6, Ma suggests the notch includes a first arcuate portion comprising a first radius, a second arcuate portion comprising a second radius, and a third arcuate portion comprising a third radius located between the first arcuate portion and the second arcuate portion. Ma does not suggest the third radius is different than the first radius, the second radius, or both. However, Clapp suggests a battery enclosure comprising a notch on an inner corner comprising a first arcuate portion comprising a first radius, a second arcuate portion comprising a second radius, and a third arcuate portion, comprising a third radius, located between the first arcuate portion and the second arcuate portion; the third radius is different than the first radius, the second radius, or both. Clapp suggests such a notch reduces the stress on the corners, see page 4/7. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the notch of Ma includes the radii suggested by Clapp (i.e., the third radius is different than the first radius, the second radius, or both) with the expectation of reducing the stress on the corners.
Regarding Claim 8, Ma suggests an electronic enclosure, comprising an arcuate segment comprising a first arcuate portion having a first radius, a second arcuate portion having a second radius, and a third arcuate portion having a third radius, wherein the third arcuate portion is coupled to and between the first arcuate portion and the second arcuate portion, a first wall extending from the first arcuate portion and a second wall extending from the second arcuate portion; wherein the first wall, the second wall, and the arcuate segment cooperatively define at least a portion of an internal volume of the electronic enclosure, and the arcuate segment portion is configured to concentrate stress caused by pressure buildup within the internal volume.
Ma does not suggest the third radius is greater than the first radius, the third radius, or both. However, Clapp suggests a battery enclosure comprising an arcuate segment (i.e., notch) on an inner corner comprising a first arcuate portion comprising a first radius, a second arcuate portion comprising a second radius, and a third arcuate portion, comprising a third radius, located between the first arcuate portion and the second arcuate portion (see annotated figure below); the third radius is different than the first radius, the second radius, or both. Clapp suggests such a notch reduces the stress on the corners, see page 4/7. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the arcuate segment of Ma includes the radii suggested by Clapp (i.e., the third radius is greater than the first radius, the second radius, or both) with the expectation of reducing the stress on the corners.
PNG
media_image8.png
321
183
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 12, and 13, Ma suggests the electronic enclosure is formed of two separate pieces (i.e., a base, a cover) such that the base comprises the arcuate segment, the first wall, and the second wall, and the cover comprises an additional arcuate segment comprising an additional first arcuate portion coupled to the first arcuate portion and having an additional first radius, an additional second arcuate portion coupled to the second arcuate portion and having an additional second radius, and an additional third arcuate portion coupled to the third arcuate portion and having an additional third radius, wherein the additional third arcuate portion extends between the additional first arcuate portion and the additional second arcuate portion, and the modification of Ma with Clapp suggests the additional third radius is greater than the additional first radius, the additional third radius, or both, from the standpoint of reducing the stress on the corners, see the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding Claim 14, Ma suggest the base includes a flange (e.g., 10b), the flange is coupled to the cover such that an edge (e.g., 101 of the base) of the flange is flush with an additional edge of the cover (i.e., 101 of the cover), see e.g., Fig. 1-2 wherein the arcuate portion of the base and the additional arcuate portion of the cover are in engagement with one another in an assembled configuration of the electronic enclosure (i.e., hermetic seal 10b).
Regarding Claim 15, Ma suggests a coupling feature (i.e., seal 10b) between the cover and the flange (of the base). Further, Ma suggests Dmin (i.e., the width between 102 and 104, see Fig. 3) is ≥1, see e.g., [0060-0061]. Thus, when Dmin is 1 the coupling feature (i.e., seal 10b) is located 0.1 to 0.6 mm away from the edge (102) of the flange and additional edge (102) of the cover.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Fauteux US 6040078, hereinafter Fauteux.
Regarding Claim 20, Ma suggests first wall and the second wall are oriented at a right angle with respect to each other; similarly, the first edge and second edge are also oriented at a right angle. Thus, Ma does not suggest the first wall and the second wall are oriented obliquely with respect to one another, and the first edge and the second edge are oriented obliquely with respect to one another, or both. However, Fauteux discloses a battery case comprising a free form geometric configuration; specifically, the first wall and the second wall are oriented obliquely with respect to one another, and the first edge and the second edge are oriented obliquely with respect to one another, see e.g., Fig. 5. Fauteux suggest the free form geometric battery shapes are advantageous from the standpoint of being able to fit into a particular accepting region of a housing in a cell phone or computer. Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the walls and edges of Ma are oriented obliquely with respect to one another so that the battery can be advantageously fit into a particular accepting region of a housing of a cell phone or computer.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (cited earlier) in view of Lu et al. (US 2022/0123396), hereinafter Lu.
Regarding Claim 20, Li does not suggest the first wall and the second wall are oriented obliquely with respect to one another, the first edge and the second edge are oriented obliquely with respect to one another, or both. However, Lu suggests a battery includes a space (10, 120, etc.) formed by orienting the walls of the battery into a specific shape; the shape of the space is rectangular, rectangular like, trapezoid, circular, semicircle, etc., to accommodate an electronic component, thereby ensuring high packaging efficiency, see e.g., Figs. 1, 4 and [0051, 0054, 0065-0066, 0069, 0092-0093]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to orient the walls obliquely with respect to one another to accommodate an electronic component of the same shape, thereby enabling high packaging efficiency, as suggested by Lu.
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 ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights