DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Applicant’s response filed 5/20/2026 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 Claims 18-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/4/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The IDS statements with copies provided of the cited document have been returned and signed; there was an unknown DAV software viewing issue at the time of the mailing of the last Office Action in which all cited documents were not properly showing to the Examiner. The software issue has been corrected; the Examiner apologies for any inconvenience caused.
The following issue is still noted: within the IDS filed 8/29/2025, the following is noted (page 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
163
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
No such JP Office Action is cited in the actual IDS filed 8/29/2025, nor is there any copy of said document provided on 8/29/2025. No additional comments are made with respect to this in the reply; accordingly, the document remains uncited and not considered.
Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith
4. In the prior Office Action the Examiner reproduced MPEP 2001 requirements with respect to Duty of Disclosure and the copending applications found by the instant Examiner, but not cited in the instant application or other applications. In response, Applicant notes:
PNG
media_image2.png
196
643
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the threshold for citing copending applications is not “having the same disclosure as this application” but rather the following:
The individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 have a duty to bring to the attention of the examiner, or other Office official involved with the examination of a particular application, information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications which are "material to patentability" of the application in question. This may include providing the identification of pending or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors or assigned to the same assignee as the current application that disclose similar subject matter that are not otherwise identified in the current application. Armour & Co. v. Swift & Co., 466 F.2d 767, 779, 175 USPQ 70, 79 (7th Cir. 1972).
See also MPEP § 2004, paragraph 9:
Accordingly, the individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 cannot assume that the examiner of a particular application is necessarily aware of other applications which are "material to patentability" of the application in question, but must instead bring such other applications to the attention of the examiner. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V., 144 F. Supp. 3d 530, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), and Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For example, if a particular inventor has different applications pending which disclose similar subject matter but claim patentably indistinct inventions, the existence of other applications must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications. Similarly, the prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are "material to patentability" of the subsequent application. See Dayco Prod., 329 F.3d at 1369, 66 USPQ2d at 1808.
For example, 18/712,521 recites the following in the independent claim:
PNG
media_image3.png
206
563
media_image3.png
Greyscale
18/579,165 recites the following in the independent claim:
PNG
media_image4.png
275
585
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The instant claim as amended recites similar/same subject matter:
PNG
media_image5.png
336
662
media_image5.png
Greyscale
An additional application was found that discloses and claims similar subject matter published in the interim from the Examiner’s initial search: 19/101,103.
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
5. As previously outlined and noted, this application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are (claim 1):
“a side structure unit configured to accommodate the cooling unit and the plurality of battery cells,”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure of “a side structure unit configured to accommodate the cooling unit and the plurality of battery cells” described in the specification performing the claimed function is considered to be at a minimum: an end plate 450 and one or more middle main plates 410, coupled together, and accommodating the cooling unit and the plurality of battery cells by way of the accommodation portions 411, 412 and cooling unit grooves 417 (see Figs. 2, 15-17; P167-175, 198). Furthermore, the side structure unit is taught as functioning as a pack case (P198). It is noted that there is no alternative structure taught in the specification for the side structure unit that achieves the corresponding functionality (i.e., only one structural option that achieves the corresponding described functionality is taught). Equivalents to this construct are also covered by this 35 U.S.C. 112(f) invocation. It is noted that while there are other structure(s) included in the side structure unit of the instant application (e.g., high-voltage line member accommodation portion 419a, 491b; busbar protrusions 416, etc.), the only the structure that is required to meet the corresponding functionality of accommodating the cooling unit and the plurality of battery cells, and equivalents thereof, is considered that outlined above.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 6 is objected to given the amendments filed to claim 1 deleting: “…wherein opposite ends of the cooling unit are fixed to the side structure unit.” Claim 6 should correct line 2 to: “the side structure unit to fix
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The rejections of claim 2, and thus dependent claims 3-10; claim 3; claim 5, and thus dependent claim 7, claim 10; claim 16; 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 are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
8. The rejection of claim 17 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 maintained as no correction, traversal, or explanation is provided.
Claim 1 as amended, and thus dependent claims 2-17, 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.
A) Claim 1 as amended recites:
“wherein the side structure unit includes a bottom rib formed to protrude in a lower direction further to a bottom portion of the plurality of battery cells…”
The meaning of “…formed to protrude in a lower direction further to a bottom portion of the plurality of battery cells” is not clear in its meaning, and is also not grammatically correct. “Further to” means ““following up on” and is used to refer to an earlier letter, conversation, meeting, etc. as evidenced by the following screenshots of Online Dictionaries or the Google-define feature (cited; copy provided):
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
PNG
media_image6.png
90
609
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
207
801
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries:
PNG
media_image8.png
243
624
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Google “Define” feature requesting “define: further to”, accessed at www.google.com:
PNG
media_image9.png
138
1052
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
304
676
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite as to its meaning, and does not set forth clear metes and bounds.
Arguendo, even if this was assumed to mean “further toward a bottom portion of the plurality of battery cells,” this is problematic given the requirement is that the bottom rib 415 is formed to protrude in a lower direction, wherein a lower direction, interpreted consistent with the specification, is the -Z axis direction (i.e., downward direction of the overall height (Z-axis) direction) (P147, 183), and the rib 415 is not shown as protruding in the lower direction (downward direction of the overall height (Z-axis direction) further to[ward] a bottom portion of the plurality of battery cells (see P182, Fig. 24). The limitation and its intended meaning are highly unclear and render the claim indefinite.
B) Claim 1 as amended recites, “ wherein the side structure unit includes a bottom rib formed to protrude in a lower direction further to a bottom portion of the plurality of battery cells…” Similar to how both claim 3 and 10 were previously rejected under this heading, this language is problematic as there is not one bottom portion of the plurality of battery cells, but rather, what would be a respective bottom portion of each of the plurality of cells. Accordingly, the language fails to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the claim and renders the claim indefinite.
C) Claim 1 as amended recites,
“wherein the side structure unit includes a bottom rib formed to protrude in a lower direction further to a bottom portion of the plurality of battery cells and to expose a venting portion of the plurality of battery cells within interfering with the venting portion.”
Similar to how both claim 3 and 10 were previously rejected under this heading, this language is problematic as there is not one venting portion of the plurality of battery cells, but rather, what would be a respective venting portion of each of the plurality of cells. Accordingly, the language fails to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the claim and renders the claim indefinite.
D) Claim 17 (as amended) recites:
“…wherein the plurality of battery cells are compressed in a height direction of a cylindrical can of each of the plurality of battery cells...”
This is ambiguous functional language as there is not a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, the boundaries are not well-defined as the claim language only states a problem solved or result obtained, and one or ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure(s) is/are encompassed by the claim.
As detailed in MPEP 2173.05(g), Examiners should consider three factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained, and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.
The language of, “the battery cells are compressed” in the direction defined is simply a result obtained, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would now know from the claim terms what structure(s) and/or structural requirements are encompassed by the claim such that there is not a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim.
During prosecution, applicant may resolve the ambiguities of a functional limitation in a number of ways including the following (MPEP 2173.05(g)):
(1) "the ambiguity might be resolved by using a quantitative metric (e.g., numeric limitation as to a physical property) rather than a qualitative functional feature" (see Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255-56, 85 USPQ2d at 1663);
(2) applicant could demonstrate that the "specification provide[s] a formula for calculating a property along with examples that meet the claim limitation and examples that do not" (see id. at 1256, 85 USPQ2d at 1663 (citing Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331, 1341, 65 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003)));
(3) applicant could demonstrate that the specification provides a general guideline and examples sufficient to teach a person skilled in the art when the claim limitation was satisfied (see Marosi, 710 F.2d at 803, 218 USPQ at 292); or
(4) applicant could amend the claims to recite the particular structure that accomplishes the function.
It would appear that only options 3 and 4 above would be applicable in this scenario, wherein the Examiner cannot find an explanation or guideline or any structure in the instant application specification that achieves the functionality claimed. Accordingly, there is not a general guideline or examples that teaches a person skilled in the art when the claim limitation is satisfied, and there is no structure taught that accomplishes the function.
Appropriate correction and/or explanation is still required.
9. 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.
10. Claim 10 is 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 10 as amended is not supported. There is no written description of “wherein at least one end of the side structure unit if formed shorter than one surface of at least one of the plurality of battery cells in contact with the cooling tube.” The issue was originally one of indefiniteness with respect to needing to utilize “respective” and identifying that this is for each of the plurality of cells (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph, page 9 of prior Office Action: “ It appears a similar correction as claim 3 is needed in terms of using “respective” and clearly identifying that this is for each of the plurality of battery cells.”). There in no written description that the range of “at least one” or that only one cell having this feature was contemplated at the effective filing date of the invention. Applicant also does not specifically point out where the support for this limitation is coming from within the written description (the only support cited for the claim amendments is page 42, lines 4-9, wherein this pertains to the language added to claim 1 and not claim 10). Accordingly, per Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007), this is sufficient to make such a rejection:
Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.")
All future claim amendments should be accompanied with comments that specifically point out support for any claim amendments. See MPEP 2163, section 3(b); MPEP § 714.02; and MPEP § 2163.06:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
"Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
11. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: P183 of the PGPUB has the same language now amended into independent claim 1 that is highly indefinite and unclear in its meaning. The specification should be corrected to accurately capture that which is shown in the drawings given the specification must be written in full, clear, concise and exact terms under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Analysis – Prior Rejections from Non-Final Office Action
12. Per MPEP § 2143.03:
“"All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). (The Board erred because it ignored claim language that it considered to be indefinite, and reached a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious based only on the rest of the claim.). However, an examiner should not simply speculate about the meaning of the claim language and then enter an obviousness rejection in view of that speculative interpretation. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) (The "considerable speculation" by the examiner and the Board as to the scope of the claims did not provide a proper basis for an obviousness rejection.)
MPEP § 2173.06 further 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. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. The claims are indefinite to the point of precluding prior art examination as well as double patenting analysis as detailed above for the multiple reasons set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph. A rejection is not made under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on what would be considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Prior art examination and double patenting analysis will be resumed once a definitive, examinable claim is set forth (i.e., the withdrawal of the prior art rejections is not equivalent to overcoming the rejections on the basis of amendments filed that distinguish over the prior art).
For compact prosecution purposes, please see the Response to Arguments section below and an analysis of some prior art with respect to a general “bottom rib” feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. The rejection of claims 1, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2019/0148681) is withdrawn because the claims presented are indefinite to the point of precluding prior art examination (see section 12 above).
The rejection of claims 1-7, 10-11, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekine et al. (JP 2012-009388) (machine translation previously provided) is withdrawn because the claims presented are indefinite to the point of precluding prior art examination (see section 12 above).
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)1 as being anticipated by Yoon et al. (WO 2024/144159) (copy provided and using EP 4,553,989 as an English language translation with a copy provided) is withdrawn because the claims presented are indefinite to the point of precluding prior art examination (see section 12 above).
Double Patenting
14. The provisional rejection of claims 1-17 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over each of:
Claims 1-3, 7-20, and 22-27 of copending Application No. 17/944,452 (reference application);
Claims 1-13, 15-21 of copending application No. 17/944,768 (reference application); or
Claims 1-22 and 24 of copending application 17/944,846 (reference application)
are each withdrawn because the claims presented are indefinite to the point of precluding double patenting analysis (see section 12 above).
15. The rejection of claims 1-17 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,283 (=17/944,431) is withdrawn because the claims presented are indefinite to the point of precluding double patenting analysis (see section 12 above).
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered. Any pertinent remaining arguments/comments or maintained rejections are addressed below.
Applicant comments:
PNG
media_image11.png
335
650
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In response: There is no indication on pages 4 and 5 of what is alleged above; pages 4-5 of the prior Office Action pertain to the Duty of Disclosure requirement. The quoted statement is found on page 7 only. The comment is made for clarity of the record.
Furthermore, the Examiner does not find that the specification provides “ample structures” for the side structure unit as alleged; there is only one structure described in the specification for the side structure unit 400. For clarity of the record, the corresponding structure of the claimed limitation of, “a side structure unit configured to accommodate the cooling unit and the plurality of battery cells” invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/sixth paragraph is outlined below and updated above as well. It is also noted that while the “a cooling unit” was not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); there is also only one single structure for the cooling unit described in the instant application as well. Reproduced from the updated/clarified Claim Analysis/35 U.S.C. 112(f)/sixth paragraph section:
The corresponding structure of “a side structure unit configured to accommodate the cooling unit and the plurality of battery cells” described in the specification performing the claimed function is considered to be at a minimum: an end plate 450 and one or more middle main plates 410, coupled together, and accommodating the cooling unit and the plurality of battery cells by way of the accommodation portions 411, 412 and cooling unit grooves 417 (see Figs. 2, 15-17; P167-175, 198). Furthermore, the side structure unit is taught as functioning as a pack case (P198). Accordingly, equivalents to this construct are also covered by this 35 U.S.C. 112(f) invocation. While there are other structure(s) included in the side structure unit of the instant application (e.g., high-voltage line member accommodation portion 419a, 491b; busbar protrusions 416, etc.), only the structure that is required to meet the corresponding functionality of accommodating the cooling unit and the plurality of battery cells, and equivalents thereof, are considered invoked by the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) language.
Applicant comments:
PNG
media_image12.png
180
672
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In response: the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112 with respect to ambiguous functional language was entirely unaddressed by Applicant by way of amendment or traversal. Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions.
Applicant argues: None of the prior art references to Park, Sekine, Yoon, or Flannery disclose any structure corresponding to the bottom rib of claim 1 (see pages 9-12 of the response filed).
In response: The structural requirements of the bottom rib of claim 1 are unclear and render the claim indefinite in its meaning (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph). For compact prosecution purposes, with respect to the prior art previously applied against the claims, Flanner teaches a side structure unit (lower clamshell 20) configured to accommodate a cooling unit (50/54) and a plurality of battery cells (30), wherein the side structure unit (lower clamshell) includes a bottom rib (see the base of socket 22) described as an inwardly projecting flange that surrounds an aperture (see Fig. 9; P239) and exposes a bottom portion of the respective battery cell it holds (see also the same structure found in Fig. 30 reproduced by Applicant):
PNG
media_image13.png
428
494
media_image13.png
Greyscale
See also: at least Fig. 3 of Kwag (US 2021/0074965) (previously cited in pertinent prior art section by Examiner) and the discussion of a multitude of a different type of ribs (cell ribs R that are part of first and second holder plates 110, 120, respectively; as well as ribs 108a, 108b) (P29-30, 66-68, 72, 91-97, 117-119, 130), wherein cell ribs R define a respective aperture/opening that exposes a vent V (“a venting portion”) of a given cell (P15, 83, 102; ; claim 8).
See also the following from the prior art cited in the IDS’s by Applicant:
Hasussmann (US 2009/0214940) (Fig. 10):
PNG
media_image14.png
751
628
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Shimizu (US 2019/0280260) (Fig. 1) and the bottom rib illustrated in Fig. 1.
Boettcher et al. (US 2014/0186675) and the bottom rib illustrated and circled below:
PNG
media_image15.png
542
785
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
547
837
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Sato et al. (US 2009/0181288) and the bottom rib options illustrated.
Accordingly, a bottom rib that is part of a “side structure unit configured to accommodate a cooling unit and a plurality of battery cells” that has an aperture/opening and allows venting to occur with no interference therewith is a well-known, standard configuration in the state of the prior art.
Conclusion
19. The prior art previously made of record considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is reproduced below.
Each of the following references individually teaches all of the structure set forth in at least claim 1 as filed on 9/14/2022 :
Flannery et al. (US 2022/0263159); Hirsch et al. (US 2020/0036062); German (US 2009/0301700); and Morimitsu et al. (US 2018/0366701).
Regarding the latter (Morimitsu et al. (US 2018/0366701)) – with respect to at least claims 1 and 11-14, identical claims to those identified were presented in 17/944,452 (since amended ) and rejected in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action mailed 4/24/2025 (copy cited and provided by Applicant), the rejection made on pages 4-7 of said Office Action applicable to these claims in the same manner as outlined in said Office Action.
Kwag et al. (US 2021/0074965) teaches the use of potting resin over a busbar assembly (full disclosure).
20. 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.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BILLIET, nee 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 C Tavares-Crockett 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 BILLIET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 Note the comments in the Non-Final Office Action with respect to this being an intervening reference.
Prosecution Insights