DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Applicant’s response filed 1/8/2026 was received. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
2. Claims 1-11 as amended are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Applicant changed the invention from “An insulator assembly” to “An assembly” and argues that this overcomes the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph against claims 2, 8, and 9 which recite elements outside the scope of the preamble of “an insulator assembly” (Applicant’s remarks filed 1/8/2026, page 7):
PNG
media_image1.png
146
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant explicitly notes the preamble has been broadened (see page 7-8 of the response filed on 1/8/2026, reproduced below), and the structure added regarding the vent flow path is based on dependent claim 2, subjected to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph rejection for features outside the scope of the original invention presented of an insulator assembly:
PNG
media_image2.png
93
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
70
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph presented against claims 2, 8, and 9 in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/8/2025 indicate that claim 2 requires at least the constituent of a battery module and a vent flow path; claim 8 requires at least a cover of a battery pack containing the battery component; and claim 9 requires a laminated busbar assembly configured to electrically connect the battery component to an electric load of a vehicle, wherein none of these components are within the original scope set forth in the preamble of an insulator assembly to which the invention was originally drawn to.
“An insulator assembly” was interpreted consistent with the specification and the claim to require an insulator sheet and an insulator sheet standoff (see prior Office Action Claim Analysis section). The now-claimed invention and construct of “an assembly,” intended by Applicant to allow for at least the components of a battery module, a cover of a battery pack, a laminated busbar assembly, an electric load of a vehicle, etc. as argued by Applicant in the response to the rejection against claims 2, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph is not the same invention originally set forth and examined of an insulator assembly (limited to the construct of an insulator sheet and an insulator sheet standoff and features related to these components). For example, the claimed “an assembly” could be any of an electric vehicle, an electric tool, a cellular device, a container for transport of devices and/or batteries, etc. The scope of “an assembly” is vast, and thus allows for not only the components identified in claims 2, 8, and 9 to be part of the construct as amended, but also essentially any other “assembly” that has at least the components claimed in additional to any other number of other components. For example, the disclosure teaches an assembly of battery modules and insulator sheets (P24), an assembly which is a laminated busbar assembly (P36-37); an assembly which is a wall assembly 102 (P48, 66). Thus, the disclosure itself demonstrates the breadth of what “an assembly” may constitute, as well as the inclusion of other components outside the scope of the originally presented and examined “an insulator assembly.”
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-11 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
3. All rejections previously applied against claims 1-11 are thus automatically withdrawn given these claims are in a withdrawn status.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammar and lack of an appropriate article. Claim 12 was amended to recite, “to define a vent flow path therebetween for battery cell venting to an external environment. It would appear this should be “for a battery cell…” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Analysis
Claim 12 as amended recites a “configured to” statement which is evaluated for its implicit and/or explicit structure set forth in by the phrase. The language is recited below:
“a plurality of insulator sheet standsoffs coupled to a side of the insulator sheet and configured to space the insulator sheet away from one more surfaces of the battery component to define a vent flow path therebetween for [a] battery cell venting to an external environment.”
The claim does not actually require any structural relationship between the plurality of insulator sheet standsoffs and the “one or more surfaces of the battery component” or any other component recited post “a plurality of insulator sheet standoffs coupled to a side of the insulator sheet.” The claim only requires the plurality of insulator sheet standoffs have such a capability or are configured to achieve the capability presented. If Applicant wishes to actually require such structural cooperative relationships, the use of “configured to” statements should be dispensed with and the structure positively set forth in the claim such as:
“…a plurality of insulator sheet standoffs coupled to a side of the insulator sheet, the plurality of insulator sheet standoffs space the insulator sheet away from one more surfaces of the battery component to define a vent flow path therebetween for [a] battery cell venting to an external environment.”
It is noted that even with the amended language above, the intended use clause of “for a battery cell venting to an external environment” is also not a structural requirement of the claim. Again, if Applicant wishes to actually recite and require such structure within the claim set, it should be positively set forth and structurally linked with the components presented such as shown in the following format:
“A battery pack for an electric vehicle comprising:
a pack housing comprising a battery component and a battery cell;
an insulator sheet positioned between the battery component and the pack housing; and
a plurality of insulator sheet standoffs coupled to a side of the insulator sheet, the plurality of insulator sheet standoffs space the insulator sheet away from one more surfaces of the battery component to define a vent flow path therebetween, [an amendment capturing the structural cooperation of the battery cell, the vent flow path, and the external environment].
The comments are made for clarity of the record; it is noted that arguendo, prior art is applied in multiple interpretations below that does include all of the presently not-required structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The rejection against claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The rejection against claims 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kogami et al. (WO 2020/262080), published 12/30/2020, using US 2022/0359945 family member as a copy and translation thereof is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments provided.
Regarding claim 12, Kogami teaches power supply device 100 (“a battery pack”) (Figs. 1-14) for an electric vehicle1 (P2, 8-9, 72-73; Figs. 15-16), comprising:
a pack housing (i.e., end plates 3 and binding bars 4 – see Figs. 1-3, P8-9) comprising a battery cell 1a2 with a corresponding battery case 11 (“a battery component”);
a heat-insulating sheet 5 (“insulator sheet”) positioned between the battery cell case 11 (“battery component”) of battery cell 1a and the pack housing (end plates 3 and binding bars 4) (Figs. 1-3); and
a plurality of insulator sheet standoffs (6a, 6a) coupled to (P69) a side of the heat-insulating sheet 5 (“insulator sheet”) and configured to3 space the heat-insulating sheet 5 (“insulator sheet”) away from one or more surfaces of the battery cell case 11 (“battery component”) of battery cell 1a to define a vent plow therebetween for [a] battery cell 1b4 venting to an external environment (note P52 describes that all the cells 1 have safety valves 14 to release gas when internal pressure of a battery cell rises to a predetermined value or more; note also the housing is not a hermetic construct such that it is intrinsically allowing for the safety valves 14 to release gas to the surrounding external environment; alternatively, “an external environment” may simply be the environment external to the cell 1b itself) (see Figs. 4-14; entire disclosure relied upon). Fig. 6 is annotated below with a and b added to the cells 1 for clarity:
PNG
media_image4.png
525
404
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Kogami teaches the power supply device 100 (“battery pack”) further comprising a plurality of separators 2 (“insulator sheets”) arranged in a vertical orientation between a plurality of battery cells 1 (“battery components”) (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Kogami teaches wherein the plurality of insulator sheet standoffs 6a is configured to support the heat-insulating sheet 5 (“insulator sheet”) against any surface or layer given its described construct. In the absence of a prior art reference teaching that the plurality of insulator sheet standoffs 6a entirely collapses, dissolves, etc., there is no reason it would not be considered configured to/capable of supporting the heat-insulating sheet 5 (“insulator sheet”) against any surface or layer. Accordingly, all of the implicit or explicit structure necessary to meet the capability claimed is considered met.
8. The rejection of claims 12-13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 2021/0359372) is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments made.
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches a battery pack 94 for an electric vehicle5 (non-limiting, intended use language), comprising:
a pack housing 95 comprising a battery module 90 (“a battery component”);
protective layer 120 made of insulating materials (P75-76, 87) (“an insulator sheet”);
a plurality of protrusions 114 (“insulator sheet standoffs”) coupled to6 (P50, 54, 77) a side of the protective layer 120 (“insulator sheet”) and configured to7 space the protective layer 120 (“insulator sheet”) away from one or more surfaces of the battery module (“battery component”) to define a vent flow path therebetween [i.e., the vent path(s) formed between or among the protrusions 114 – see Figs. 8-9 and generally described as “a concave” 115 – (P87-98)] for [a] battery cell venting to an external environment8. Regarding the latter italicized language, it is noted that Wu teaches a battery cell with a respective pressure relief element 92 that allows for venting of the cell to an external environment (the external environment relative to the internal space of the battery cell itself) (P89) and/or the cell(s) vent via 92 of the cover 930 to an external environment relative to the inside of the module below the cover 930 and container holding the cells (Figs. 8-17).
Regarding claim 13, Wu teaches wherein the battery component is a battery module 90, and wherein protective layer 120 (“insulator sheet”) is spaced from the one or more surfaces of the battery module 90 by the plurality of protrusions 14 (“insulator sheet standoffs”) to define the vent flow path therebetween (the concave portion(s) 15; Figs. 1-8, 15-17).
Regarding claim 17, Wu teaches wherein the plurality of protrusions 114 (“plurality of insulator sheet standoffs”) is configured to support the protective layer 120 (“insulator sheet”) against body 113 (“a backing layer”) (P102).
9. The rejection of claims 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takabayashi et al. (US 2019/0081289) is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments made.
Interpretation 1
Regarding claim 12, Takabayashi teaches a storage battery module 1 (“battery pack”) for an electric vehicle9 (non-limiting, intended use language) (Figs. 1-7; P7-51), comprising:
a pack housing (housing 40 and cover 60) comprising a battery cell 51 with a housing (“a battery component”) (P17-18, 26);
a first member 10 (“insulator sheet”) (P20) positioned between the battery cell housing (“battery component”) and the pack housing (40, 60); and
a plurality of spacers 53 (“insulator sheet standoffs”) coupled to (Fig. 4) a side of the and configured to space the first member 10 (“insulator sheet”) away from and one or more surfaces of the battery cell housing (“battery component”) to define a vent flow path (i.e. by way of cooling gaps 54 in spacer 53 and holes 11 in insulation sheet 10) therebetween for [a] battery cell venting to an external environment.
Alternatively, the claimed “battery component” and “[a] battery cell” could each just be respective battery cells.
Interpretation 2
Regarding claim 12, Takabayashi teaches a storage battery module 1 (“battery pack”) for an electric vehicle10 (non-limiting, intended use language) (Figs. 1-7; P7-51), comprising:
a pack housing (housing 40 and cover 60) comprising a battery cell 51 (“a battery component”) (P17-18, 26);
an insulator sheet 10 (P20) positioned between the battery cell 51 (“battery component 51”) and the pack housing (40, 60); and
a plurality of copper substrates 33 (“insulator sheet standoffs”) coupled to the side of the insulator sheet 10 and configured to space the insulator sheet 10 away from one or more surfaces of the battery cell 51 (“battery component”) to define a vent flow path therebetween for a [second] battery cell venting to an external environment. The vent flow path in this case is achieved by the corresponding holes 39, 12, and 37 for copper substrate 38, first member 10, or substrate 30, respectively. Alternatively, the battery cell housing of a first cell could be the “battery component.”
Interpretation 3
Regarding claim 12, Takabayashi teaches a storage battery module 1 (“battery pack”) for an electric vehicle11 (non-limiting, intended use language) (Figs. 1-7; P7-51), comprising:
a pack housing (housing 40) comprising a cover 60 (“a battery component”) (P17-18, 26);
an insulator sheet 10 (P20) positioned between the cover 60 (“battery component”) and the pack housing (40); and
“a plurality of insulator sheet standoffs” (substrate 30 and second member 20) coupled to a side of the insulator sheet 10 and configured to space the insulator sheet 10 away from one or more surfaces and one or more surfaces of the cover 60 (“battery component”) to dfine a vent flow path therebetween for [a] battery cell 51 venting to an external environment. The vent flow path has multiple interpretations and could be cooling gaps 54 in spacer 53 and/or the corresponding holes or gaps in first member 10, second member 20, and/or substrate 30, respectively.
Regarding claim 14, Takabayashi teaches (first and second interpretations) wherein the insulator sheet 10 is a first insulator sheet, the battery pack further comprising a second insulator sheet 20 layered with the first insulator sheet 10 in a laminated bus bar assembly (bus bar assembly exists in substrate 30, see copper substrates 33). Alternatively, the claimed second insulator sheet could be the substrate 30 which is layered with the first insulator sheet 10 in a laminated bus bar assembly. Alternatively, the second insulator sheet could be the embodiment shown in Fig. 7 in which there is a substrate 36 with copper substrates 38.
Regarding claim 15, Takabayashi teaches (first and second interpretations) wherein the battery component ((a first cell or a first cell housing)) is a first battery component, first insulator sheet is positioned above the first battery component 51 (a first cell or a first cell housing), and the second insulator sheet is arranged above a second battery component 51 (a second cell or a second cell housing), the second insulator sheet adjacent a cover 60 of the battery pack housing (40, 60).
Regarding claim 16, Takabayashi teaches the battery pack further comprising a plurality of spacers 53 (“insulator sheets”) (second and third interpretations) arranged in a vertical orientation between a plurality of battery components (cells 51).
Regarding claim 17, Takabayashi teaches (all interpretations) wherein the plurality of insulator sheet standoffs is configured to support the insulator sheet 10 against a backing layer. It is noted that a backing layer is not positively recited; however, the configuration is taught by Takabayshi. For example, the backing layer could be either of 20 or 36 in the various configurations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The rejection of claims 12, 13, 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2014/0242429) is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments provided.
Interpretation 1
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches a battery module array 540 comprising a plurality of unit modules (i.e., “a battery pack”) (Figs. 2-10) for an electric vehicle12 (non-limiting, intended use language, although taught at P39-40), comprising:
a pack housing (pair of end plates 530, casings 120, casings 130) (Figs. 2-1)) comprising (at least one) battery module 200 (Fig. 8) including an outermost module unit 202 (Fig. 3) (“a battery component”);
an insulator sheet 500 positioned between the outermost battery module 202 (“the battery component”) and the pack housing (either end plate 530) (Figs. 2-5); and
a plurality of ribs (“insulator sheet standoffs”) provided to a side of the insulator sheet 500 and configured to space the insulator sheet away from one or more surfaces of the he outermost battery module 202 (“the battery component”) to define a vent flow path for [a] battery cell venting to an external environment. The “vent flow path” is coolant flow channel 560 associated with the insulator sheet 500 and one or more surfaces of the outermost battery module 202 (“the battery component”) (P58; see Fig. 5, entire disclosure relied upon). It is noted that the coolant may be air, wherein the flow channel is also capable of meeting the intended use language of being used for [a] venting battery cell to an external environment simultaneously.
Lee fails to explicitly teach that the plurality of ribs (“insulator sheet standoffs”) is coupled to the insulator sheet 500; Lee simply states that the insulator sheet 500 (Fig. 2, 3 12) is provided with the rib(s) which are “formed at” the insulation member (P35, 58). Accordingly, there are only two possible options to achieve the illustrated insulator sheet 500 with at least one rib 510: either the at least one rib(s) is/are standalone structures coupled to the insulator sheet 500 to achieve the illustrated construct (Figs. 2, 3, 12), or the components are integral with one another. In the former scenario the claim is met, in the latter scenario, the claim is rendered obvious given the court has held that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Interpretation 2
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches a battery pack 600 (Fig. 11) for an electric vehicle13 (non-limiting, intended use language although taught at P39-40), comprising:
a pack housing (base plate 800, fixing frames 700, pair of end plates 530 – P69-75) comprising a battery module 100’ (“a battery component”);
an insulator sheet 500 positioned between the battery module 100 (“battery component”) and the pack housing (specifically either end plate 530); and
a plurality of ribs (“insulator sheet standoffs”) provided to a side of the insulator sheet 500 and configured to space the insulator sheet away from one or more surfaces of the battery module 100 (“the battery component”) to define a vent flow path for [a] battery cell venting to an external environment. It is noted that the coolant may be air, wherein the flow channel is also capable of meeting the intended use language of being used for [a] venting battery cell to an external environment simultaneously.
Lee fails to explicitly teach that the at least one rib (“insulator sheet standoff”) is coupled to the insulator sheet 500; Lee simply states that the insulator sheet 500 (Fig. 2, 3 12) is provided with the rib(s) which are “formed at” the insulation member (P35, 58). Accordingly, there are only two possible options to achieve the illustrated insulator sheet 500 with at least one rib 510: either the at least one rib(s) is/are standalone structures coupled to the insulator sheet 500 to achieve the illustrated construct (Figs. 2, 3, 12) by way of some mechanical or bonding means, or the components are integral with one another. In the former scenario the claim is met, in the latter, the claim is rendered obvious given the court has held that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches (either interpretation) wherein the claimed battery component is a battery module, and wherein the insulator sheet 500 is spaced from the one or more surfaces of the battery module by the plurality of insulator sheet standoffs 510 to define the vent flow path 560 therebetween.
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the battery pack (at least Interpretation 1) further comprising a plurality of insulator sheets 530 (see Fig. 3) arranged in a vertical orientation between a plurality of battery components (i.e., end plate 530 and corresponding outermost modules adjacent thereto – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of insulator sheet standoffs 510 is configured to support the insulator sheet against a backing layer (end plate 530 or cell cover 310). It is noted that “a backing layer” is not positively required of the claim, wherein any interpretation is considered to meet the claim given all structure necessary to meet the claim is taught by Lee.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Kogami reference, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
164
680
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
132
671
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In response: The updated rejection of record reflects the amendments made to the claim and sets forth at least one interpretation that meets the features as amended. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive and is maintained, and the updated rejection of record is not repeated here which meets all requirements of the amended claim.
Regarding the Wu reference, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image7.png
250
672
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
140
663
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In response: It is noted the embodiment relied upon in Wu has been altered to address the amendment of the requirement of a plurality of insulator sheet standoffs. As to the arguments against how particle blocking layer 110 (what would now be a plurality of protrusions 114 in the updated reflection) does not space the protective layer 120 away from the one or more surfaces of the battery component to define a vent flow path therebetween for [a] battery cell venting to an external environment, Applicant is directed to the Claim Analysis section and that the claim does not require such spacing or cooperative structural relationships among the components, only that the structure of the plurality of protrusions 114 is such that they are capable of providing this functionality and spacing given the “configured to” statement. Arguendo, even if interpreted that such spacing is required, this is met by the disclosure of Wu in which the protection assembly 100 as a whole sits on top of the cells (Fig. 15) or the cover 930 (Fig. 16) and creates vent flow path(s) via the concavities 115 to provide a vent flow path for [a] battery cell venting to an external environment (i.e., the external environment relative to the cell itself or the external environment relative to the module) (entire disclosure relied upon). Accordingly, the amendments made do not avoid the Wu reference and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the Takabyashi reference, Applicant argues the following (with respect to claim 2) and that “for similar reasons,” the Takabayashi rejection should be withdrawn:
PNG
media_image9.png
90
652
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
197
669
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In response: It is noted that future responses should respectfully discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims as amended avoid the references or distinguish from them. For example, in the instant scenario, claim 2 in its entirety is not amended into claim 1 with claim 1 not requiring the battery component to be a battery module as one non-limiting example. Accordingly, it is not clear on the record what would distinguish claim 1 as amended, distinctive from the requirements of original claim 2 that is not entirely within claim 1 as evidenced by its presence still in the claim set, from the applied references, or if claim 1 is even distinguished from these applied references. Likewise, not all of claim 13 (reciting the vent flow path in part but reciting additional features) is placed in independent claim 12, and it’s not clear how Applicant believes the amendments avoid any of the three interpretations of Takabayashi as maintained and updated in the rejection of record to reflect the amendments made.
Regarding the Lee reference, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image11.png
197
635
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In response: There is no reason the coolant flow channel that uses air for cooling could not simultaneously meet the intended use language of for [a] battery cell venting to an external environment. Applicant is directed to the Claim Analysis section and that the claim does not require such spacing or cooperative structural relationships among the components, only that the structure of the plurality of protrusions 114 is such that they are capable of providing this functionality and spacing given the “configured to” statement. Arguendo, even if considered required of the claim, the feature is met by Lee in terms of there being no reason the open flow channel could not simultaneously be used as a vent flow path for a battery cell venting to an external environment. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al. (US 2021/0184307) teaches the insulator assembly construct 320 below within a battery module (Fig. 5A):
PNG
media_image12.png
514
561
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Pao et al. (US 9,634,434) is pertinent to laminated bus bar electrical configurations.
Moore, Jr. (US 4,852,314) teaches an insulating panel 10 comprising: phenolic board substrate 28 (“an insulator sheet”) with spacer strips 30 (“an insulator sheet standoff”) coupled thereto with adhesive (C4/L12-22). All of the structure required of the claimed construct is met, with the configured to statement capable of being met by the structure taught by Moore, Jr.
Ellis (US 7,818,922) teaches an insulator with a plurality of ribs (“insulator sheet standoff”) with all the structure recited met.
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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 (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 Non-limiting, intended use language (see MPEP § 2111.02).
2 1a is added to Fig. 6 below for clarity of the interpretation applied to the amended claim
3 See Claim Analysis Section regarding the evaluation of this clause.
4 1b is added to Fig. 6 below for clarity of the interpretation applied to the amended claim
5 Non-limiting, intended use language. See MPEP § 2111.02.
6 As is standard within the state of the prior art, “coupled to” may be directly coupled to or indirectly coupled to with intervening component(s) therebetween. See P50 of Wu stating as much.
7 See Claim Analysis Section above with respect to how the “configured to” statement is evaluated.
8 See Claim Analysis Section above with respect to how the intended use clause within a configured to statement is being evaluated.
9 Non-limiting, intended use language. See MPEP § 2111.02.
10 Non-limiting, intended use language. See MPEP § 2111.02.
11 Non-limiting, intended use language. See MPEP § 2111.02.
12 Non-limiting, intended use language. See MPEP § 2111.02.
13 Non-limiting, intended use language. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Prosecution Insights