DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Applicant’s response filed 11/20/2025 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.
Claim Objections
2. The objection to claim 11 is withdrawn as an appropriate correction has been filed.
3. Claim 1 is objected to for clarity: all structure indented under “a thermal runaway protection blanket including:” should proceed the “wherein “statements for clarity. In other words, claim 1 should be presented as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
183
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
187
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
65
643
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image4.png
90
649
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2, 4-13, 16-20, 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.
Claim 1 as amended now recites at least, “…wherein the vent apertures extend from the first surface directly to ones of the gas flow channels, respectively.”
Applicant alleges:
PNG
media_image5.png
119
647
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Neither paragraphs 78-79, nor Fig. 16 describe or illustrate the feature claimed. It would appear that the vent apertures could (maybe?) extend from the first surface via a certain thickness of the thermal runaway protection blanket before encountering the gas flow channels, or perhaps the vent apertures encounter the gas flow channels directly from the first surface (i.e., no intervening thickness of the thermal runaway protection blanket between the first surface and the gas flow channels); however, the specification nor the figures make clear which of the two options it is. Thus, the claimed feature is never described or illustrated such that presenting a claim that the vent apertures extend from the first surface directly to the ones of the gas flow channels, respectively, is not a feature described or illustrated in the instant application such that it does not appear application was in possession of the amended claim.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claim 2, and thus dependent claim 4; claim 10, and thus dependent claims 11-13; and claim 12 are rejected 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to define “gas flow channels that extend in a first direction” along with “vent apertures that are aligned in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.” Each of claims 2 and 10 recite “a first direction” and “a second direction,” such that the claims are indefinite as they either fail to properly invoke proper antecedent basis or are failing to define distinctive directions from those recited in claim 1. The issue compounds given the claimed “a second direction” in claims 2 and 10 is defined as being “opposite the first direction” whereas claim 1 defines the second direction as perpendicular to the first direction. Thus, the first and second directions of claim 2 cannot be one in the same as the first and second directions defined in claim 1 such that the issue is not one of failing to invoke proper antecedent basis. The is also apparent from the subject matter claimed; for example, the positive terminals of the cylindrical battery cells of the groups are not disposed on a first plane and face [the] first direction as defined in claim 1 when looking to the disclosure.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite in part, “wherein the positive terminals of the cylindrical battery cells extend into the recessed portions, respectively.” Claim 10 then defines that positive terminals of a first portion of the cylindrical battery cells of the groups are disposed on a first plane and face a first direction; the positive terminals of a second portion of the cylindrical battery cells of the groups are disposed on a second plane that is parallel to the first plane and face a second direction that is opposite the first direction. It is not clear how it is possible to meet claim 1 requiring the positive terminals of the cylindrical battery cells extend into the recessed portions, and then subsequently meet claim 10 defining that there are first and second portions of the cylindrical battery cells facing directions opposite to one another. If the positive terminals of the cylindrical battery cells extend into the recessed portions, respectively, as defined in claim 1, then it would appear the positive terminals would have to face the same direction.
This issue compounds at claim 12 which then recites, “wherein the positive terminals of the second portion of the cylindrical battery cells extend into the second recessed portions, respectively” (as defined in claim 11). It is not clear how it is possible to configure the cylindrical battery cells such that simultaneously extend in to the recessed portions, respectively (claim 1) as well as the second recessed portions (claim 12).
Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2, 10, and 12 (and thus any dependent claims thereon – claims 4 and 11-13) are indefinite to the point of precluding prior art examination; see MPEP § 2173.06 which notes that when there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. Accordingly, any prior art rejections applied to claims 2, 4, and 10-13 from the prior Office Action are automatically withdrawn on this basis (note: additional statements of withdrawal are not presented below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. REJECTION A: The rejections of claims 1, 5-7 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR 10-2019-0023917 (machine translation provided) in view of any of the following (individually):
Yusa (US 2008/0286637) OR
Fujiwara (US 2014/0154530) OR
Godding et al. (WO 2022/043249) (copy provided)
are each withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed.
9. REJECTION B: The rejection of claims 1, 5-8, and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al. (2015/0221914) in view of Fujiwara (US 2014/0154530) is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments filed.
Regarding claim 1, Page teaches a battery module (Figs. 3-8 embodiments), comprising:
groups of two or more cylindrical battery cells (204, 304, 404), each of the battery cells of each group having a positive terminal (P25, 29, Fig. 1B), a negative terminal (P25, 29, Fig. 1B), and a vent (P37); and
electrically conductive busbars that electrically connect the groups within the housing (P53); and
a lid (201, 301, 401) that intumesces in response to a thermal runaway to prevent heat/fire from spreading (P31, 36-39, 54-56) (i.e., “a thermal runaway protection blanket”) including (the following features illustrated in Figs. 4, 6, etc.):
a first surface;
a second surface that is opposite the first surface; and
recessed portions that are recessed relative to the second surface and that extend from the second surface toward the first surface,
wherein the vents of at least a portion of the battery cells face the recessed portions, respectively,
wherein the positive terminals of the cylindrical battery cells extend into the recessed portions, respectively (best shown in corresponding singular housing construct of Figs. 1A-2A, which is expanded to have multiple batteries in the embodiment relied upon; entire disclosure relied upon),
circular lips 316 (optionally also ribs 318) that mate with respective venting cavities 308 to form respective enclosed venting chambers 322 that include venting passageways 320 between adjacent battery chambers and venting chambers 322 (P59-64; see Figs. 5-7) (i.e., “gas flow channels that extend in a first direction and fluidly connect ones of the recessed portions”); and
vent apertures 303 that are aligned in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the vent apertures 303 extend from the first surface directly to ones of the circular lips 316 (“gas flow channels”) (Figs. 5, 7; annotated below for clarity):
PNG
media_image6.png
520
532
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
472
603
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The vent apertures 303 that are aligned in a second direction are annotated in both Figs. 5 and 7 for clarity.
It is noted that in an alternative interpretation, the designated first and second directions may be reversed: the circular lips 316 (“gas flow channels”) extend in all directions as they are three-dimensional objects such that they can be said to extend in “a first direction” (i.e., the annotated second direction above”) with the vent apertures 303 aligned in a second direction (the annotated first direction) opposite to the first direction (the annotated second direction).
The exact electrical configuration of the battery module of Page is not detailed (i.e., lines 2-11 of claim 1); however, the configuration is well-known and routine in the art as taught by Fujiwara as detailed in the rejections of copending application 17/887,996, reciting the identical subject matter of claim 1, lines 1-11, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image8.png
35
295
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
213
601
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
350
593
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to known, electrical configurations of busbars and battery modules that allow series or parallel connections, and to select the specific electrical configuration taught by Fujiwara for the electrical configuration of the battery module of Page having similar components taught as being connected in series or in parallel (P53), thereby providing a suitable electrical configuration to provide a viable battery module with appropriate electrical configurations that achieve a desired current or voltage output.
Regarding claim 5, Page teaches wherein a thickness of the lid (201, 301, 401) (“thermal runaway protection blanket”) between the first surface and the recessed portions is less than a predetermined distance (i.e., whatever distance is greater than that illustrated is considered the claimed predetermined distance).
Regarding claim 6, Page fails to explicitly teach that the recessed portions are frustoconical; however, the change in form or shape without any new or unexpected results is considered an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04, Section IV-B).
Regarding claim 7, Page teaches wherein the lid (201, 301, 401) (“thermal runaway protection blanket”) includes a thermally stable material (P31-35, 38, 54).
Regarding claim 8, Page teaches wherein the lid (201, 301, 401) (“thermal runaway protection blanket”) includes mica (P33).
Regarding claim 16, Page as modified by Fujiwara teaches it is a known technique to provide the positive terminal 71b of the battery module is disposed on a first side of the battery module; the negative terminal of the battery module 72b is disposed on a second side of the battery module; and the second side is opposite the first side (see Fig. 1 of Fujiwara). It is noted that the specific selection of the side(s) on which the positive and/or negative terminal(s) exist is considered a routine design choice.
Regarding claim 17, Page as modified by Fujiwara teaches the construct of claim 16 versus the construct of 17 (both terminals disposed on the same first side); wherein the specific selection of the side(s) on which the positive and/or negative terminal(s) exist is considered a routine design choice such that absent objective evidence that the configuration creates a new or unexpected result, the rearrangement of the terminals of Fujiwara to the same side is considered routine design choice.
10. The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al. (2015/0221914) in view of Fujiwara (US 2014/0154530) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Toshihiro et al. (JP 2021-086820) (machine translation provided) is maintained.
Regarding claim 9, Page teaches the lid (201, 301, 401) (“thermal runaway protection blanket”) includes an intumescent flame retardant (IFR) material that intumesces in the event of thermal runaway (P26) and teaches the IFR material includes one or more IFR polymer composites that include base polymers, fire retardants (including mica- P33), and blowing agents in addition to other agents such as char-forming agents (P31-35), and a mixture of these different components can be utilized (P35). Page does not explicitly teach the format of these materials (i.e., powder, fibers, etc.) and specifically, that “one or more fiber materials” may be utilized as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Toshihiro teaches analogous art of a battery pack including a plurality of lithium ion batteries that is provided with a thermal runaway suppression fireproof sheet (“thermal runaway protection blanket”) with excellent fire resistance that can prevent the spread of fire to an adjacent lithium ion battery (abstract; page 2, paragraph 1 – hereinafter “P2/P1”), wherein the thermal runaway suppression fireproof sheet includes analogous materials as taught by Page include polymer materials (i.e., the taught base polymer – P31, 34) and mica (Ex. 17), and teaches the former is in the form of fibers given fibers will entangle with one another increasing the strength of the base material as well as its flexibility (P2/2-8). Toshihiro further teaches the use of other types of components utilized in said thermal runaway suppression fireproof sheet including glass fiber, moist heat-adhesive binder fiber, a heat-resistant fiber, and a fibrillated heat-resistant fiber (P2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the base polymer of Page in the form of fibers given Toshihiro teaches an analogous thermal runaway suppression fireproof sheet (“thermal runaway protection blanket”) with excellent fire resistance that can prevent the spread of fire to an adjacent lithium ion battery, and that the use of said materials in the form of fibers provides the advantageous, predictable results of increased strength and flexibility due to the fibers entangling with one another (P2/P2-8; entire disclosure relied upon).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide any or all of the glass fiber, moist heat-adhesive binder fiber, a heat-resistant fiber, and/or fibrillated heat-resistant fiber components taught by Toshihiro to the thermal suppression lid (201, 301, 401) (“thermal runaway protection blanket”) of Page in order to achieve the advantages described by Toshihiro including strength, flexibility, adhesiveness, permeability, and liquid retention (P2/P7).
In regard to the selection and use of a known material to meet known requirements, see MPEP § 2144.07, citing the following case law:
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
11. The rejection of claims 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al. (2015/0221914) in view of Fujiwara (US 2014/0154530) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Schweinbenz et al. (US 2020/0303709) is maintained.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Page teaches a battery pack comprising:
at least two of the battery modules of claim 1 (see Fig. 8).
Page fails to explicitly teach:
electrical conductors electrically connecting the at least two battery modules in series; wherein the positive terminals of the at least two battery modules are arranged on first sides of the at least two battery modules, respectively;
wherein the negative terminals of the at least two battery modules are arranged on second sides of the at least two battery modules, respectively,
wherein the second sides of the at least two battery modules are opposite the first sides of the respective at least two battery modules (claim 18), and
wherein a first one of the at least two battery modules is disposed one of: on top of a second one of the at least two battery modules; and beside a second one of the at least two battery modules (claim 19).
In order for the battery pack of Page to be a useful, viable battery pack, it would be prima facie obvious to electrically connect the modules to one another in series and/or parallel in order that electrical energy could be easily extracted from all the modules.
Looking to known constructs as to how this can be achieved, Schweinbenz teaches it is a known technique to provide at least two battery modules 101, 102 with electrical conductors (7, 8) electrically connecting the at least two battery modules in series (claim 3; P11); wherein the positive terminals are arranged on first sides of the at least two battery modules, respectively; wherein the negative terminals are arranged on second sides of the at least two battery modules, respectively, wherein the second sides of the at least two battery modules are opposite the first sides of the respective at least two battery modules (1-3b; entire disclosure relied upon; specifically P11 and claim 3). Schweinbenz further teaches wherein a first one of the at least two battery modules is disposed one of beside a second one of the at least two battery modules (claim 19), as is the case in Page’s configuration (see Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to known means by which battery modules can be electrically connected to one another to produce a battery pack, thereby achieving the predictable result of increasing the voltage and/or current of the construct, and to select the specific terminal location and module arrangement taught by Schweinbenz which allows the modules to be connected in series to one another (P11).
12. The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al. (2015/0221914) in view of Fujiwara (US 2014/0154530) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Ober et al. (US 2021/0143515) is maintained.
Regarding claim 20, Page teaches a battery pack comprising:
at least two of the battery modules of claim 1 (see Fig. 8).
Page fails to explicitly teach:
electrical conductors electrically connecting the at least two battery modules in series;
wherein the positive terminals of the at least two battery modules are arranged on first sides of the at least two battery modules, respectively; and
wherein the negative terminals of the at least two battery modules are arranged on the first sides of the at least two battery modules, respectively.
In order for the battery pack of Page to be a useful, viable battery pack, it would be prima facie obvious to electrically connect the modules to one another in series and/or parallel in order that electrical energy could be easily extracted from all the modules.
Looking to known constructs as to how this can be achieved, Ober teaches analogous art of a battery system/pack having two battery modules with the terminals of each all located on the same first side of the respective module (Fig. 7B) with electrica conductors connecting the modules 20a, 20b in series (P42; Fig. 7b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to known means by which battery modules can be electrically connected to one another to produce a battery pack, thereby achieving the predictable result of increasing the voltage and/or current of the construct, and to select the specific terminal location and module arrangement taught by Ober which allows the modules to be connected in series to one another (P11).
13. REJECTION C: The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0303701) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0023917) (machine translation provided) is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed.
Double Patenting
14. The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-13, and 16-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-12, and 15-20 of copending Application No. 17/888,058 (claim set filed 11/20/20251) is maintained.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the subject matter presently claimed in the instant application independent claim is found in the amended '058 claim, despite a slight difference of wording but capturing the same construct, with the '058 claim reciting additional structure (i.e., a cooling plate). All of the subject matter in the remainder of the claims is met by the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
15. The provisional rejection of claims 1-20 a on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/887,996 (see claim set filed 7/2/2025) is withdrawn in view of the amendments made in the instant application, as well as the issue fee payment filed in the '996 application (i.e., if a double patenting rejection were to be made, it would have to be against the issued patent).
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are reproduced below:
PNG
media_image11.png
446
684
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[Figs. 5-7 of Page are reproduced in the response; not reproduced here].
PNG
media_image12.png
282
672
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In response: The rejection of record is updated in view of the amendments made as follows, with the portion relied upon for the claimed gas flow channels within Page being that of circular lips 316 versus ribs 318. Accordingly, the interpretation of Page is altered as necessitated by the amendment filed to meet the features presented in the claimed construct:
Page teaches the lid (201, 301, 401) that intumesces in response to a thermal runaway to prevent heat/fire from spreading (P31, 36-39, 54-56) (i.e., “thermal runaway protection blanket”) includes:
circular lips 316 (optionally also ribs 318) that mate with respective venting cavities 308 to form respective enclosed venting chambers 322 that include venting passageways 320 between adjacent battery chambers and venting chambers 322 (P59-64; see Figs. 5-7) (i.e., “gas flow channels that extend in a first direction and fluidly connect ones of the recessed portions”); and
vent apertures 303 that are aligned in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the vent apertures 303 extend from the first surface directly to ones of the circular lips 316 (“gas flow channels”) (Figs. 5, 7; annotated below for clarity):
PNG
media_image6.png
520
532
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
472
603
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The vent apertures 303 that are aligned in a second direction are annotated in both Figs. 5 and 7 for clarity.
It is noted that in an alternative interpretation, the designated first and second directions may be reversed: the circular lips 316 (“gas flow channels”) extend in all directions as they are three-dimensional objects such that they can be said to extend in “a first direction” (i.e., the annotated second direction above”) with the vent apertures 303 aligned in a second direction (the annotated first direction) opposite to the first direction (the annotated second direction).
Accordingly, the amendments filed are met by Page.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fei et al. (CN 114010988) (machine translation provided) teaches analogous art of a fire extinguishing device shell that is arranged on end caps/covers of battery cells, the fire extinguishing device shell performing chemical flame retardance on the battery cell undergoing thermal runway and interrupting free radical chain reaction (i.e., is analogous to a thermal runaway blanket). Fei teaches it is a known technique to provides the fire extinguishing device shell 10/110 such that it directly sits on the end caps 330 of the cells 320 where the vent exists.
Yoshida et al. (US 2022/0140434) is pertinent to the thermal runaway blanket construct including recessed portions as claimed.
Each of Lane (US 10,707,462) and Wu et al. (US 2021/0257700) teaches alternately arranged batteries (i.e., different groups having positive and negative terminals oriented opposite to one another), the latter reproduced below:
PNG
media_image13.png
530
465
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
18. 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.
19. 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 The claim set filed 11/20/2025 was not entered by the Examiner of the 17/888,058 application post-Final; however, it is the most current claim set filed by Applicant and is thus used for the double patenting rejection.
Prosecution Insights