Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued the claim objections are not necessary as a mode is a part of the standby solution. The mixing of a functional step (sans structure to perform it) with structure was somewhat ok when the applicant lacked a clear category (see the 101 rejection) of invention, which was why a claim objection was applied. However, now that the applicant has claimed these claims 1-12 are a system/apparatus/product, and has not clearly identified these modes as functional steps of some controller/processor, the claim objection has been upgraded to the 112(b) rejection already applied. It is unclear how the applicant is claiming these modes are performed. The examiner suggests the applicant emend to claim that some controller/processor is performing the changes to make these modes occur. Asset tracker is a form of controller, if the applicant wants clarification. In summary, while the 101 rejections and claim objections have been withdrawn due to the amendments, a 112(b) rejection will be applied instead.
As for the prior art, the applicant has claimed: (a) “rejection is conclusionary and unsupported,” (b) “teaching of a constant maximum voltage level is not adequately supported in the claimed context,” (c) combination of Taka and Corho does not adequately meet the line mode of operation, (d) “modification destroys intended function of primary reference,” (e) “no reasonable expectation of success in combining or modifying prior art”, (f) dependent claim prior art references cannot make up for independent claim prior art references. For all these reasons, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As for argument (a), the applicant appears to be asking for the examiner to provide perfection of inherent official notice (it is noted that the purpose of a UPS [uninterruptible power supply] system is to provide a battery which can support powered operations when external power supply is down for as long as possible, so the examiner knows finding the reference was unnecessary, but as the applicant has requested support, it will be provided, see MPEP 2144.03 on reliance on common knowledge in the art). As evidenced by PowerShield (“Battery Charging Regimes,” PowerShield, published online Jan 31 2018, Accessed Online Jan 31 2026, https://info.powershield.com/blog/data-center-ups-battery-management-101-battery-charging-regimes#:~:text= Unless%20the%20UPS%20is%20hit,battery%20reaches%20100%25%20of%20capacity. ) in pages 3-4 in the float/trickle service describes it as the most commonly used UPS charging system to keep the battery fully charged. If the applicant would like the examiner to furnish art to support the fact that the higher the SOC level for a battery, the longer it can provide a certain amount of current for a certain amount of time (known as a C-rate) reliably, the examiner would be happy to assist the applicant.
The examiner was pointing out to the applicant that while Takahashi (hereinafter Taka) was silent about the voltage/charge level of the battery in the standby mode, Carhodzic (hereinafter Carho) clearly describes the maintaining of the battery level with an analogous operation for a UPS. By maintaining the battery level at the fully charged level/voltage, the battery can reliably provide power in the event of an external power outage as long as possible. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
As for argument (b), cited
¶[71] “the set point to which the AC-to-DC converter 170 regulates the voltage on the DC bus 175 can be a function of a battery charging circuit topology. If the battery charging circuit provides a voltage boost circuit (e.g., boost converter, charge pump, flyback), then the set point voltage may be substantially at or below a desired maximum charge voltage.”
Abstract “Each UPS includes a battery selectively connectable across a DC bus,& a AC-to-DC rectifier that converts an AC input voltage to a single output voltage on the DC bus. The regulated DC bus voltage may be close to the battery's fully charged voltage.”
Examiner notes the applicant’s claim states “the charging rectifier maintains a constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery”. By maintaining the DC bus with the battery at this level, one of ordinary skill in the art (as evidenced by PowerShield, and Corho in at least ¶[13: “ the AC-to-DC conversion circuit can regulates the DC output voltage signal to approximately 1 Volt above the maximum nominal charge voltage of the battery. Also, the DC bus voltage can provide sufficient voltage for a linear regulator connected in series with the battery across the DC bus to trickle charge the battery to a fully charged state according to battery specifications”], note that ¶[13] was previously uncited, but only added here to give further context on the common knowledge in the art) understands that the battery would be charged and maintained by trickle charging to the maximum voltage level of the battery.
The examiner notes, however, that there was some ambiguity/breadth in applicant’s claims which allowed for another interpretation (which the examiner was also addressing). If “the charging rectifier maintains a constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery” means that the rectifier output was this value constant maximum voltage level, rather than the battery level was this value, then Corho teaches it even better, as Corho again states “the set point to which the AC-to-DC converter 170 regulates the voltage on the DC bus …then the set point voltage may be substantially at or below a desired maximum charge voltage.”. If the applicant meant the battery level was kept fully charged/max voltage, then Corho teaches that with the use of providing the trickle charge at the maximum charge voltage. If the applicant meant the rectifier output was maintained at that level (which again the claim language ambiguously provides support for), then Corho, by providing power at this maximum level, meets the requirements as well. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
As for applicant’s arguments (c), as noted above, the applicant’s argument has been respectfully refuted in light of the counter remarks.
As for applicant’s arguments (d), the applicant has admitted that Taka teaches the claimed modes of operation
PNG
media_image1.png
156
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Then, the applicant has argued, without citations, that Taka teaches longevity of a battery which cannot function as a UPS is commonly understood to function as those of ordinary skill in the art understand them to run. As noted above, a UPS is meant to have a battery at or near fully charged so that when an emergency situation occurs with external power lost, the UPS will be able to reliably provide power to the loads for as long as possible so as to either continue running unimpeded, or make shutdown operations in a controlled way (i.e. instead of an instant shutdown, shutting down normally so work is not lost). Both Taka and Corho describe their systems as UPS. Therefore, by explicitly demonstrating in Corho what was not explicitly described by Taka, it has not destroyed the function of Taka. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
As for applicants’ argument (e), as noted above, the applicant’s argument has been respectfully refuted in light of the counter remarks.
As for applicant’s argument (f), as noted above, the applicant’s argument has been respectfully refuted in light of the counter remarks. The applicant’s only position seemed to be that the foundation was faulty (e.g. built on sand), so the dependent claim rejections could not stand (e.g. house built on sand cannot stand). The examiner demonstrated the foundation was solid (e.g. built on rock), and therefore the dependent claim rejections could stand (e.g. house built on rock can take a knock).
The drawing and specification objections are maintained as the applicant has omitted to address the objections. Applicant appears to consider that 37 CFR 1.83[a] was the only rule used to object. If the applicant looks at pages 3 & 4 of the non-final rejection mailed 8/20/2025, they will see that 37 CFR 1.121[d] was also relied upon. The other sections of the MPEP the applicant cited do not supersede these MPEP sections, so the objections will be maintained. The rule requested by the applicant at the bottom of page 10 is 37 CFR 1.121[d].
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Limitations of Claims 3 & 9 are not described “so that the lithium battery meets pre-determined current and voltage characteristics and then maintains the constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery.”
Limitations of Claim 17 “during line mode, the charging rectifier receiving information about a charge state of the lithium battery from the battery monitoring system via the interface distribution module and making power available to the battery bus to feed power to the lithium battery.” It is noted that the rectifier is not shown having a data line to receive information about a charge state of the lithium battery from the battery monitoring system.
Limitations of Claims 1, 7, & 9 “a line mode, wherein the charging rectifier maintains a constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery;” [3 modes in general not shown]
Method steps of Claims 13-20 (no flow chart), including:
Limitations of Claim 17 “during line mode, the charging rectifier receiving information about a charge state of the lithium battery from the battery monitoring system via the interface distribution module and making power available to the battery bus to feed power to the lithium battery.”
Limitations of Claim 18 “during the charge mode, the charging rectifier receiving information from battery monitoring system so as to control charging of the battery cells evenly.”
Limitations of Claims 19 & 20 (entirety)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the blank boxes of Figs. 1 & 2 have not been clearly labeled with text or symbols (either add text/symbols in the drawing, or add a legend to the drawings). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Telecom site standby solution for extended run time power system comprising backup battery in parallel with a UPS and in further in parallel with a lithium battery
Or Telecom site standby solution for extended run time power system comprising three parallel uninterruptible power supply branches
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
For Claims 1-3 and 7-9, the applicant has omitted the structure for performing the switching between the charge mode & the discharge mode. Add something to Claims 1 & 7 e.g. a switch [would likely require amending Claims 4 & 10 to say the switch is the solid-state relay].
It is further noted as the applicant has now claimed a system, a system/apparatus/product claim does not comprise functional limitations. Something in the system needs to perform a control operation to the operations. For instance, the applicant can emend the claims to state:
“and a controller, the controller is configured to perform:
PNG
media_image2.png
211
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”
As the applicant has demonstrated a form of this controller as the “asset tracker” of Figs. 1-5, this language is supported (unless the applicant wants to claim the asset tracker itself). For purposes of examination, examiner will assume the applicant has emended to solve the issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (USPGPN 20080290733, hereinafter Taka) in view of Corhodzic et al (USPGPN 20090021078; hereinafter Corho)
Independent Claim 1, Taka teaches a standby solution for extended run time power systems for a load at a telecom site (disk/disc array/information processing unit/communication equipment, see ¶’s [02, 03, 69, 72]) with backup power (abstract, title, ¶’s [02, 69, 28-30]), the standby solution (Figs. [1, 3, & 5-10, esp. 1, 6, 8, & 9]) comprising:
an interface distribution module including a battery bus (13 & 152);
a lithium battery (151, ¶[31], Figs. [5, 7-9]) electrically connected to the battery bus;
a charging rectifier (12, 61) electrically connected to the interface distribution module;
a line mode, wherein the charging rectifier maintains a constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery (¶’s [51, 52] describes the charger 61 receiving the power of the rectifier 12 to recharge the battery, i.e. maintain the battery voltage at the maximum voltage level [maximum voltage level being a constant value, i.e. not a fluctuating value, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art]);
a discharge mode, wherein the interface distribution module engages a discharge bias to enable discharge of the lithium battery to the load (62 turned on, see ¶’s [51, 53, 61, 63]); and
a charge mode, wherein the interface distribution module disengages the discharge bias to disable discharge of the lithium battery (as noted in the cited sections above, esp. ¶’s [51-53], the switch 62 is normally off and the battery charges during normal power input supply, while when power outage occurs, the switch 62 is turned on, i.e. the claimed system is a UPS [uninterruptible power supply] system, so when 62 is off, the battery is charging).
Taka teaches recharging of the battery, but does not explicitly teach that the rectifier output is the constant maximum voltage level of the battery.
Corho teaches the rectifier output is the constant maximum voltage level of the battery (lithium battery ¶’s [12 119], constant maximum voltage level of the battery, abstract, ¶’s [71, 88, 116, esp. 88], see Figs. [1B, 2-4], telecom system ¶’s [42, 46, 79], Figs. [1, 3, & 4] showing the rectifier directly outputting to the battery, switches of 5A & 5B demonstrating one example of switching between load and charge similar to Taka). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by maintaining the battery at a fully charged/full voltage level, it serves to improve the reliability of the UPS system, since it will be able to provide backup power for a longer period than if the battery was not fully charged to the maximum voltage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taka with Corho to provide improved reliability.
Applicant has argued the claim objections are not necessary as a mode is a part of the standby solution. The mixing of a functional step (sans structure to perform it) with structure was somewhat ok when the applicant lacked a clear category (see the 101 rejection) of invention, which was why a claim objection was applied. However, now that the applicant has claimed these claims 1-12 are a system/apparatus/product, and has not clearly identified these modes as functional steps of some controller/processor, the claim objection has been upgraded to the 112(b) rejection already applied. It is unclear how the applicant is claiming these modes are performed. The examiner suggests the applicant emend to claim that some controller/processor is performing the changes to make these modes occur. Asset tracker is a form of controller, if the applicant wants clarification. In summary, while the 101 rejections and claim objections have been withdrawn due to the amendments, a 112(b) rejection will be applied instead.
As for the prior art, the applicant has claimed: (a) “rejection is conclusionary and unsupported,” (b) “teaching of a constant maximum voltage level is not adequately supported in the claimed context,” (c) combination of Taka and Corho does not adequately meet the line mode of operation, (d) “modification destroys intended function of primary reference,” (e) “no reasonable expectation of success in combining or modifying prior art”, (f) dependent claim prior art references cannot make up for independent claim prior art references. For all these reasons, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As for argument (a), the applicant appears to be asking for the examiner to provide perfection of inherent official notice (it is noted that the purpose of a UPS [uninterruptible power supply] system is to provide a battery which can support powered operations when external power supply is down for as long as possible, so the examiner knows finding the reference was unnecessary, but as the applicant has requested support, it will be provided, see MPEP 2144.03 on reliance on common knowledge in the art). As evidenced by PowerShield (“Battery Charging Regimes,” PowerShield, published online Jan 31 2018, Accessed Online Jan 31 2026, https://info.powershield.com/blog/data-center-ups-battery-management-101-battery-charging-regimes#:~:text= Unless%20the%20UPS%20is%20hit,battery%20reaches%20100%25%20of%20capacity. ) in pages 3-4 in the float/trickle service describes it as the most commonly used UPS charging system to keep the battery fully charged. If the applicant would like the examiner to furnish art to support the fact that the higher the SOC level for a battery, the longer it can provide a certain amount of current for a certain amount of time (known as a C-rate) reliably, the examiner would be happy to assist the applicant.
The examiner was pointing out to the applicant that while Takahashi (hereinafter Taka) was silent about the voltage/charge level of the battery in the standby mode, Carhodzic (hereinafter Carho) clearly describes the maintaining of the battery level with an analogous operation for a UPS. By maintaining the battery level at the fully charged level/voltage, the battery can reliably provide power in the event of an external power outage as long as possible. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
As for argument (b), cited
¶[71] “the set point to which the AC-to-DC converter 170 regulates the voltage on the DC bus 175 can be a function of a battery charging circuit topology. If the battery charging circuit provides a voltage boost circuit (e.g., boost converter, charge pump, flyback), then the set point voltage may be substantially at or below a desired maximum charge voltage.”
Abstract “Each UPS includes a battery selectively connectable across a DC bus,& a AC-to-DC rectifier that converts an AC input voltage to a single output voltage on the DC bus. The regulated DC bus voltage may be close to the battery's fully charged voltage.”
Examiner notes the applicant’s claim states “the charging rectifier maintains a constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery”. By maintaining the DC bus with the battery at this level, one of ordinary skill in the art (as evidenced by PowerShield, and Corho in at least ¶[13: “ the AC-to-DC conversion circuit can regulates the DC output voltage signal to approximately 1 Volt above the maximum nominal charge voltage of the battery. Also, the DC bus voltage can provide sufficient voltage for a linear regulator connected in series with the battery across the DC bus to trickle charge the battery to a fully charged state according to battery specifications”], note that ¶[13] was previously uncited, but only added here to give further context on the common knowledge in the art) understands that the battery would be charged and maintained by trickle charging to the maximum voltage level of the battery.
The examiner notes, however, that there was some ambiguity/breadth in applicant’s claims which allowed for another interpretation (which the examiner was also addressing). If “the charging rectifier maintains a constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery” means that the rectifier output was this value constant maximum voltage level, rather than the battery level was this value, then Corho teaches it even better, as Corho again states “the set point to which the AC-to-DC converter 170 regulates the voltage on the DC bus …then the set point voltage may be substantially at or below a desired maximum charge voltage.”. If the applicant meant the battery level was kept fully charged/max voltage, then Corho teaches that with the use of providing the trickle charge at the maximum charge voltage. If the applicant meant the rectifier output was maintained at that level (which again the claim language ambiguously provides support for), then Corho, by providing power at this maximum level, meets the requirements as well. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
As for applicant’s arguments (c), as noted above, the applicant’s argument has been respectfully refuted in light of the counter remarks.
As for applicant’s arguments (d), the applicant has admitted that Taka teaches the claimed modes of operation
PNG
media_image1.png
156
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Then, the applicant has argued, without citations, that Taka teaches longevity of a battery which cannot function as a UPS is commonly understood to function as those of ordinary skill in the art understand them to run. As noted above, a UPS is meant to have a battery at or near fully charged so that when an emergency situation occurs with external power lost, the UPS will be able to reliably provide power to the loads for as long as possible so as to either continue running unimpeded, or make shutdown operations in a controlled way (i.e. instead of an instant shutdown, shutting down normally so work is not lost). Both Taka and Corho describe their systems as UPS. Therefore, by explicitly demonstrating in Corho what was not explicitly described by Taka, it has not destroyed the function of Taka. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
As for applicants’ argument (e), as noted above, the applicant’s argument has been respectfully refuted in light of the counter remarks.
As for applicant’s argument (f), as noted above, the applicant’s argument has been respectfully refuted in light of the counter remarks. The applicant’s only position seemed to be that the foundation was faulty (e.g. built on sand), so the dependent claim rejections could not stand (e.g. house built on sand cannot stand). The examiner demonstrated the foundation was solid (e.g. built on rock), and therefore the dependent claim rejections could stand (e.g. house built on rock can take a knock).
Independent Claim 7, Taka teaches a standby solution for extended run time power systems for a load at a telecom site (disk/disc array/information processing unit/communication equipment, see ¶’s [02, 03, 69, 72]) including a UPS (703, 70n in Fig. 7), a backup battery(70n, where [701, 72, 702] in Fig. 7, each 701, 703, 70n corresponds to 151 in Figs. [1, 3, & 5-10, esp. 1, 6, 8 & 9], see ¶’s [58, 59], where ¶[64] & Fig. 9 demonstrate that more than 2 batteries/UPS are contemplated in parallel in Fig. 7), and an AC power line (see Figs. 1 & 7-9), the standby solution comprising:
an interface distribution module (13 & 152) including a battery bus and a power supply bus, wherein the UPS (703) and the backup battery (70n) are electrically connected to the power supply bus (see esp. Figs. [1, 6, & 7]);
a lithium battery (151, ¶[31], Figs. [5, 7-9], 701) electrically connected to the battery bus;
a charging rectifier (12, 61) electrically connected to the interface distribution module;
a line mode, wherein the charging rectifier maintains a constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery (¶’s [51, 52] describes the charger 61 receiving the power of the rectifier 12 to recharge the battery, i.e. maintain the battery voltage at the maximum voltage level [maximum voltage level being a constant value, i.e. not a fluctuating value, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art]);
a discharge mode, wherein the interface distribution module engages a discharge bias to enable discharge of the lithium battery to the load (62 turned on, see ¶’s [51, 53, 61, 63]); and
a charge mode, wherein the interface distribution module disengages the discharge bias to disable discharge of the lithium battery (as noted in the cited sections above, esp. ¶’s [51-53], the switch 62 is normally off and the battery charges during normal power input supply, while when power outage occurs, the switch 62 is turned on, i.e. the claimed system is a UPS [uninterruptible power supply] system, so when 62 is off, the battery is charging).
While Taka does not explicitly describe the embodiments of Figs. 6 & 7 being used together, ¶[58] describes 152 [which is shown in detail in Fig. 6] being used in the charging and discharging of the UPS & backup battery units, respectively, which is described in ¶’s [58, 59] as being a switch [MOS switch], while ¶[59] describes the parallelly connected UPS [703] and backup battery [701] improving the versatility of the system [since in parallel, can turn one on or off based on the current/amperage needs of the load during backup operations, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art].
Taka teaches recharging of the battery, but does not explicitly teach that the rectifier output is the constant maximum voltage level of the battery.
Corho teaches the rectifier output is the constant maximum voltage level of the battery (lithium battery ¶’s [12 119], constant maximum voltage level of the battery, abstract, ¶’s [71, 88, 116, esp. 88], see Figs. [1B, 2-4], telecom system ¶’s [42, 46, 79], Figs. [1, 3, & 4] showing the rectifier directly outputting to the battery, switches of 5A & 5B demonstrating one example of switching between load and charge similar to Taka). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by maintaining the battery at a fully charged/full voltage level, it serves to improve the reliability of the UPS system, since it will be able to provide backup power for a longer period than if the battery was not fully charged to the maximum voltage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taka with Corho to provide improved reliability.
Applicant has argued the claim objections are not necessary as a mode is a part of the standby solution. The mixing of a functional step (sans structure to perform it) with structure was somewhat ok when the applicant lacked a clear category (see the 101 rejection) of invention, which was why a claim objection was applied. However, now that the applicant has claimed these claims 1-12 are a system/apparatus/product, and has not clearly identified these modes as functional steps of some controller/processor, the claim objection has been upgraded to the 112(b) rejection already applied. It is unclear how the applicant is claiming these modes are performed. The examiner suggests the applicant emend to claim that some controller/processor is performing the changes to make these modes occur. Asset tracker is a form of controller, if the applicant wants clarification. In summary, while the 101 rejections and claim objections have been withdrawn due to the amendments, a 112(b) rejection will be applied instead.
As for the prior art, the applicant has claimed: (a) “rejection is conclusionary and unsupported,” (b) “teaching of a constant maximum voltage level is not adequately supported in the claimed context,” (c) combination of Taka and Corho does not adequately meet the line mode of operation, (d) “modification destroys intended function of primary reference,” (e) “no reasonable expectation of success in combining or modifying prior art”, (f) dependent claim prior art references cannot make up for independent claim prior art references. For all these reasons, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As for argument (a), the applicant appears to be asking for the examiner to provide perfection of inherent official notice (it is noted that the purpose of a UPS [uninterruptible power supply] system is to provide a battery which can support powered operations when external power supply is down for as long as possible, so the examiner knows finding the reference was unnecessary, but as the applicant has requested support, it will be provided, see MPEP 2144.03 on reliance on common knowledge in the art). As evidenced by PowerShield (“Battery Charging Regimes,” PowerShield, published online Jan 31 2018, Accessed Online Jan 31 2026, https://info.powershield.com/blog/data-center-ups-battery-management-101-battery-charging-regimes#:~:text= Unless%20the%20UPS%20is%20hit,battery%20reaches%20100%25%20of%20capacity. ) in pages 3-4 in the float/trickle service describes it as the most commonly used UPS charging system to keep the battery fully charged. If the applicant would like the examiner to furnish art to support the fact that the higher the SOC level for a battery, the longer it can provide a certain amount of current for a certain amount of time (known as a C-rate) reliably, the examiner would be happy to assist the applicant.
The examiner was pointing out to the applicant that while Takahashi (hereinafter Taka) was silent about the voltage/charge level of the battery in the standby mode, Carhodzic (hereinafter Carho) clearly describes the maintaining of the battery level with an analogous operation for a UPS. By maintaining the battery level at the fully charged level/voltage, the battery can reliably provide power in the event of an external power outage as long as possible. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
As for argument (b), cited
¶[71] “the set point to which the AC-to-DC converter 170 regulates the voltage on the DC bus 175 can be a function of a battery charging circuit topology. If the battery charging circuit provides a voltage boost circuit (e.g., boost converter, charge pump, flyback), then the set point voltage may be substantially at or below a desired maximum charge voltage.”
Abstract “Each UPS includes a battery selectively connectable across a DC bus,& a AC-to-DC rectifier that converts an AC input voltage to a single output voltage on the DC bus. The regulated DC bus voltage may be close to the battery's fully charged voltage.”
Examiner notes the applicant’s claim states “the charging rectifier maintains a constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery”. By maintaining the DC bus with the battery at this level, one of ordinary skill in the art (as evidenced by PowerShield, and Corho in at least ¶[13: “ the AC-to-DC conversion circuit can regulates the DC output voltage signal to approximately 1 Volt above the maximum nominal charge voltage of the battery. Also, the DC bus voltage can provide sufficient voltage for a linear regulator connected in series with the battery across the DC bus to trickle charge the battery to a fully charged state according to battery specifications”], note that ¶[13] was previously uncited, but only added here to give further context on the common knowledge in the art) understands that the battery would be charged and maintained by trickle charging to the maximum voltage level of the battery.
The examiner notes, however, that there was some ambiguity/breadth in applicant’s claims which allowed for another interpretation (which the examiner was also addressing). If “the charging rectifier maintains a constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery” means that the rectifier output was this value constant maximum voltage level, rather than the battery level was this value, then Corho teaches it even better, as Corho again states “the set point to which the AC-to-DC converter 170 regulates the voltage on the DC bus …then the set point voltage may be substantially at or below a desired maximum charge voltage.”. If the applicant meant the battery level was kept fully charged/max voltage, then Corho teaches that with the use of providing the trickle charge at the maximum charge voltage. If the applicant meant the rectifier output was maintained at that level (which again the claim language ambiguously provides support for), then Corho, by providing power at this maximum level, meets the requirements as well. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
As for applicant’s arguments (c), as noted above, the applicant’s argument has been respectfully refuted in light of the counter remarks.
As for applicant’s arguments (d), the applicant has admitted that Taka teaches the claimed modes of operation
PNG
media_image1.png
156
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Then, the applicant has argued, without citations, that Taka teaches longevity of a battery which cannot function as a UPS is commonly understood to function as those of ordinary skill in the art understand them to run. As noted above, a UPS is meant to have a battery at or near fully charged so that when an emergency situation occurs with external power lost, the UPS will be able to reliably provide power to the loads for as long as possible so as to either continue running unimpeded, or make shutdown operations in a controlled way (i.e. instead of an instant shutdown, shutting down normally so work is not lost). Both Taka and Corho describe their systems as UPS. Therefore, by explicitly demonstrating in Corho what was not explicitly described by Taka, it has not destroyed the function of Taka. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
As for applicants’ argument (e), as noted above, the applicant’s argument has been respectfully refuted in light of the counter remarks.
As for applicant’s argument (f), as noted above, the applicant’s argument has been respectfully refuted in light of the counter remarks. The applicant’s only position seemed to be that the foundation was faulty (e.g. built on sand), so the dependent claim rejections could not stand (e.g. house built on sand cannot stand). The examiner demonstrated the foundation was solid (e.g. built on rock), and therefore the dependent claim rejections could stand (e.g. house built on rock can take a knock).
Independent Claim 13, Taka teaches a method of providing extended run-time power to a load at a telecom site (disk/disc array/information processing unit/communication equipment, see ¶’s [02, 03, 69, 72]) including a UPS (703, 70n in Fig. 7), backup battery (70n, where [701, 72, 702] in Fig. 7, each 701, 703, 70n corresponds to 151 in Figs. [1, 3, & 5-10, esp. 1, 6, 8 & 9], see ¶’s [58, 59], where ¶[64] & Fig. 9 demonstrate that more than 2 batteries/UPS are contemplated in parallel in Fig. 7), and an AC power line (see Figs. 1 & 7-9), the method (Fig. 2) comprising:
providing an interface distribution module (13 & 152) including a battery bus (152) and a power supply bus (13);
electrically connecting the UPS (703) and the backup battery (70n) to the power supply bus (see Figs. [1 & 6-9, esp. 6, & 7]);
providing a lithium battery (151, ¶[31], Figs. [5, 7-9]) and electrically connecting the lithium battery to the battery bus (see Figs. [1 & 6-9, esp. 6, & 7]);
providing a charging rectifier (12, 61) electrically connected to the interface distribution module (see Figs. [1 & 6-9, esp. 6, & 7]);
during a line mode, the charging rectifier maintaining a constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery (¶’s [51, 52] describes the charger 61 receiving the power of the rectifier 12 to recharge the battery, i.e. maintain the battery voltage at the maximum voltage level [maximum voltage level being a constant value, i.e. not a fluctuating value, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art]);
during a discharge mode, engaging a discharge bias to enable to discharge of the lithium battery to the load in parallel (¶’s [14, 58, 59, 65) with the backup battery (62 turned on, see ¶’s [51, 53, 61, 63]); and
during a charge mode, disengaging the discharge bias to disable discharge of the lithium battery to the load (as noted in the cited sections above, esp. ¶’s [51-53], the switch 62 is normally off and the battery charges during normal power input supply, while when power outage occurs, the switch 62 is turned on, i.e. the claimed system is a UPS [uninterruptible power supply] system, so when 62 is off, the battery is charging).
While Taka does not explicitly describe the embodiments of Figs. 6 & 7 being used together, ¶[58] describes 152 [which is shown in detail in Fig. 6] being used in the charging and discharging of the UPS & backup battery units, respectively, which is described in ¶’s [58, 59] as being a switch [MOS switch], while ¶[59] describes the parallelly connected UPS [703] and backup battery [701] improving the versatility of the system [since in parallel, can turn one on or off based on the current/amperage needs of the load during backup operations, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art].
Taka teaches recharging of the battery, but does not explicitly teach that the rectifier output is the constant maximum voltage level of the battery.
Corho teaches the rectifier output is the constant maximum voltage level of the battery (lithium battery ¶’s [12 119], constant maximum voltage level of the battery, abstract, ¶’s [71, 88, 116, esp. 88], see Figs. [1B, 2-4], telecom system ¶’s [42, 46, 79], Figs. [1, 3, & 4] showing the rectifier directly outputting to the battery, switches of 5A & 5B demonstrating one example of switching between load and charge similar to Taka). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by maintaining the battery at a fully charged/full voltage level, it serves to improve the reliability of the UPS system, since it will be able to provide backup power for a longer period than if the battery was not fully charged to the maximum voltage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taka with Corho to provide improved reliability.
Applicant has argued the claim objections are not necessary as a mode is a part of the standby solution. The mixing of a functional step (sans structure to perform it) with structure was somewhat ok when the applicant lacked a clear category (see the 101 rejection) of invention, which was why a claim objection was applied. However, now that the applicant has claimed these claims 1-12 are a system/apparatus/product, and has not clearly identified these modes as functional steps of some controller/processor, the claim objection has been upgraded to the 112(b) rejection already applied. It is unclear how the applicant is claiming these modes are performed. The examiner suggests the applicant emend to claim that some controller/processor is performing the changes to make these modes occur. Asset tracker is a form of controller, if the applicant wants clarification. In summary, while the 101 rejections and claim objections have been withdrawn due to the amendments, a 112(b) rejection will be applied instead.
As for the prior art, the applicant has claimed: (a) “rejection is conclusionary and unsupported,” (b) “teaching of a constant maximum voltage level is not adequately supported in the claimed context,” (c) combination of Taka and Corho does not adequately meet the line mode of operation, (d) “modification destroys intended function of primary reference,” (e) “no reasonable expectation of success in combining or modifying prior art”, (f) dependent claim prior art references cannot make up for independent claim prior art references. For all these reasons, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As for argument (a), the applicant appears to be asking for the examiner to provide perfection of inherent official notice (it is noted that the purpose of a UPS [uninterruptible power supply] system is to provide a battery which can support powered operations when external power supply is down for as long as possible, so the examiner knows finding the reference was unnecessary, but as the applicant has requested support, it will be provided, see MPEP 2144.03 on reliance on common knowledge in the art). As evidenced by PowerShield (“Battery Charging Regimes,” PowerShield, published online Jan 31 2018, Accessed Online Jan 31 2026, https://info.powershield.com/blog/data-center-ups-battery-management-101-battery-charging-regimes#:~:text= Unless%20the%20UPS%20is%20hit,battery%20reaches%20100%25%20of%20capacity. ) in pages 3-4 in the float/trickle service describes it as the most commonly used UPS charging system to keep the battery fully charged. If the applicant would like the examiner to furnish art to support the fact that the higher the SOC level for a battery, the longer it can provide a certain amount of current for a certain amount of time (known as a C-rate) reliably, the examiner would be happy to assist the applicant.
The examiner was pointing out to the applicant that while Takahashi (hereinafter Taka) was silent about the voltage/charge level of the battery in the standby mode, Carhodzic (hereinafter Carho) clearly describes the maintaining of the battery level with an analogous operation for a UPS. By maintaining the battery level at the fully charged level/voltage, the battery can reliably provide power in the event of an external power outage as long as possible. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
As for argument (b), cited
¶[71] “the set point to which the AC-to-DC converter 170 regulates the voltage on the DC bus 175 can be a function of a battery charging circuit topology. If the battery charging circuit provides a voltage boost circuit (e.g., boost converter, charge pump, flyback), then the set point voltage may be substantially at or below a desired maximum charge voltage.”
Abstract “Each UPS includes a battery selectively connectable across a DC bus,& a AC-to-DC rectifier that converts an AC input voltage to a single output voltage on the DC bus. The regulated DC bus voltage may be close to the battery's fully charged voltage.”
Examiner notes the applicant’s claim states “the charging rectifier maintains a constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery”. By maintaining the DC bus with the battery at this level, one of ordinary skill in the art (as evidenced by PowerShield, and Corho in at least ¶[13: “ the AC-to-DC conversion circuit can regulates the DC output voltage signal to approximately 1 Volt above the maximum nominal charge voltage of the battery. Also, the DC bus voltage can provide sufficient voltage for a linear regulator connected in series with the battery across the DC bus to trickle charge the battery to a fully charged state according to battery specifications”], note that ¶[13] was previously uncited, but only added here to give further context on the common knowledge in the art) understands that the battery would be charged and maintained by trickle charging to the maximum voltage level of the battery.
The examiner notes, however, that there was some ambiguity/breadth in applicant’s claims which allowed for another interpretation (which the examiner was also addressing). If “the charging rectifier maintains a constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery” means that the rectifier output was this value constant maximum voltage level, rather than the battery level was this value, then Corho teaches it even better, as Corho again states “the set point to which the AC-to-DC converter 170 regulates the voltage on the DC bus …then the set point voltage may be substantially at or below a desired maximum charge voltage.”. If the applicant meant the battery level was kept fully charged/max voltage, then Corho teaches that with the use of providing the trickle charge at the maximum charge voltage. If the applicant meant the rectifier output was maintained at that level (which again the claim language ambiguously provides support for), then Corho, by providing power at this maximum level, meets the requirements as well. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
As for applicant’s arguments (c), as noted above, the applicant’s argument has been respectfully refuted in light of the counter remarks.
As for applicant’s arguments (d), the applicant has admitted that Taka teaches the claimed modes of operation
PNG
media_image1.png
156
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Then, the applicant has argued, without citations, that Taka teaches longevity of a battery which cannot function as a UPS is commonly understood to function as those of ordinary skill in the art understand them to run. As noted above, a UPS is meant to have a battery at or near fully charged so that when an emergency situation occurs with external power lost, the UPS will be able to reliably provide power to the loads for as long as possible so as to either continue running unimpeded, or make shutdown operations in a controlled way (i.e. instead of an instant shutdown, shutting down normally so work is not lost). Both Taka and Corho describe their systems as UPS. Therefore, by explicitly demonstrating in Corho what was not explicitly described by Taka, it has not destroyed the function of Taka. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
As for applicants’ argument (e), as noted above, the applicant’s argument has been respectfully refuted in light of the counter remarks.
As for applicant’s argument (f), as noted above, the applicant’s argument has been respectfully refuted in light of the counter remarks. The applicant’s only position seemed to be that the foundation was faulty (e.g. built on sand), so the dependent claim rejections could not stand (e.g. house built on sand cannot stand). The examiner demonstrated the foundation was solid (e.g. built on rock), and therefore the dependent claim rejections could stand (e.g. house built on rock can take a knock).
Dependent Claims 2 and 8, the combination of Taka and Corho teaches the charging rectifier powers the battery bus with electricity from the AC power line (see Figs. [1 & 6-9] in Taka, Corho Figs. [1, 3, & 4]).
Dependent Claims 3 and 9, the combination of Taka and Corho teaches the charging rectifier powers the battery bus with electricity from an AC power line so that the lithium battery meets pre-determined current and voltage characteristics and then maintains the constant maximum voltage level of the lithium battery (¶’s [51, 52] of Taka describes constant current, i.e. pre-determined current, Corho abstract, ¶’s [71, 88, 116, esp. 88] describes pre-determined maximum constant, i.e. predetermined, voltage characteristics of battery)
Dependent Claim 15, the combination of Taka and Corho teaches providing a sense line coupling the AC power line and the interface distribution module, so as to provide information about power on the AC power line (CPU 67 along with Fig. 2 [end of T1] and ¶’s [35, 37, 42, 43, 52] describes determination/detection that the commercial AC power supply being out, i.e. below a particular threshold in Taka;
Corho: controller 245 ¶103], ¶’s [102-106] describes sensing of the AC fault); and
the interface distribution module changing from the line mode to the discharge mode in response to the power on the AC power line dropping below a voltage threshold (Fig. 2 of Taka, Fig. 7 of Corho generally describes this process).
Dependent Claim 16, the combination of Taka and Corho teaches continually providing power to the load during the line mode, during the discharge mode, and while the interface distribution module changes from the line mode to the discharge mode (Taka see Fig. 2; Corho see at least ¶[20]).
Dependent Claim 17, the combination of Taka and Corho teaches providing a battery monitoring system electrically coupled to battery cells within the lithium battery and coupled in data communication to the interface distribution module (Taka CPU 67, ¶’s [52, 67]); and
during line mode, the charging rectifier receiving information about a charge state of the lithium battery from the battery monitoring system via the interface distribution module and making power available to the battery bus to feed power to the lithium battery (CPU controlling charger 61 to be on based on controls of CPU in Taka, ¶[116] Corho describes dynamic control of output power of rectifier based on battery characteristics, which according to Taka includes the battery voltage).
Dependent Claim 20, the combination of Taka and Corho teaches if the battery monitoring system detects a charge of the lithium battery (¶’s [33, 67] of Taka) at or below a minimum charge threshold, the battery monitoring system instructs a battery power board to disengage the discharge bias to disable discharge of the lithium battery (640 and ¶[108] of Corho describes being below a voltage threshold indicates the power stored in the battery, i.e. the charge level, is low, i.e. below a threshold which indicates a low charge level, see further ¶[114] of Corho; ¶’s [33, 67] of Taka).
Claims 4-6, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taka in view of Corho, further in view of Krishnamoorthy et al (USPGPN 20230108060; hereinafter Krish)
Dependent Claims 4 and 10, the combination of Taka and Corho teaches the interface distribution module comprises: a power supply bus to which the backup power is electrically coupled; and which combines the power supply bus and the battery bus in parallel to provide power to the load (as cited above for Claims 1 and 7).
Taka is silent to a solid-state relay used for discharging the battery (¶[65] has the serial connection of batteries in each of the parallel UPS structures of Fig. 7 being a semiconductor relay, i.e. solid state relay, but not necessarily switches 62, 63).
Krish teaches a solid-state relay (104B is described as a solid state relay in ¶[33], to place UPS 122 including battery 112, Figs. [1-3, esp. 1 & 2] in parallel with bus connecting 102 to load 108). Official notice taken that solid state relays have longer service live [durability], low power consumption [efficient], quiet [noise], resistance to shocks/vibrations [durability], and high switching frequency [accuracy].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taka in view of Corho with Krish to provide improved accuracy, durability, efficiency, and noise.
Dependent Claims 5 and 11, the combination of Taka, Krish, and Corho teaches when the standby solution is in the discharge mode, the solid-state relay combines the power supply bus and the battery bus to contemporaneously provide power to the load from both the lithium battery and the backup power when the standby solution is in the discharge mode, the solid-state relay combines the power supply bus and the battery bus to contemporaneously provide power to the load from both the lithium battery and the backup battery (Taka shows in Fig. 7 that the power is provided in parallel, thus for each 151, the relay/switch connects them in parallel to provide power together, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, until the time period is up demonstrated in Fig. 2, see ¶’s [29, 33-37, 58, 59]).
Dependent Claims 6 and 12, the combination of Taka, Krish, and Corho teaches the lithium battery comprises:
a battery out that is electrically coupled to the battery bus (Taka 151, 701, 702, 703, 70n shows an output connecting with 13 in Figs. 6 & 7);
battery cells (Taka: 151, 701,702,703,70n, serially connected cells by switches in Fig. 7);
a battery power board (Taka 152) electrically coupled to each of the battery cells and to the battery out (Taka 152 includes mos switch [i.e. integrated switch/power-board switch], see ¶’s [58, 65], which corresponds to [62, 63] of Fig. 6); and
a battery monitoring system electrically coupled to each of the battery cells and coupled in data communication to the interface distribution module (CPU, ¶’s [33, 52, 67]);
wherein the battery power board includes a MOSFET for engaging and disengaging the discharge bias in response to instructions from the interface distribution module in response to information from the battery monitoring system about a charge state of the battery cells (Taka’s circuit demonstrates much of this, while microcontroller 106 of Krish demonstrates communication the battery could have with the interface distribution module, as well as Corho 245’s interaction with battery controller 305 ¶[83])
Dependent Claim 14, the combination of Taka and Corho teaches the interface distribution module includes a which combines the power supply and the battery bus in parallel so that, during the discharge mode, the interface distribution module contemporaneously provides power to the load from both the lithium battery and the backup battery (as cited above for Claims 1 and 7).
Taka is silent to a solid-state relay used for discharging the battery (¶[65] has the serial connection of batteries in each of the parallel UPS structures of Fig. 7 being a semiconductor relay, i.e. solid state relay, but not necessarily switches 62, 63).
Krish teaches a solid-state relay (104B is described as a solid state relay in ¶[33], to place UPS 122 including battery 112, Figs. [1-3, esp. 1 & 2] in parallel with bus connecting 102 to load 108). Official notice taken that solid state relays have longer service live [durability], low power consumption [efficient], quiet [noise], resistance to shocks/vibrations [durability], and high switching frequency [accuracy].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taka in view of Corho with Krish to provide improved accuracy, durability, efficiency, and noise.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taka in view of Corho, further in view of King (USPGPN 20130169038)
Dependent Claim 18, the combination of Taka and Corho teaches controlling the charging rectifier for charging the battery cells based on information from the battery monitoring system (as described above, Taka CPU, ¶’s [33, 52, 67], ¶[108] of Corho)
Taka is silent to control charging of the battery cells evenly.
King teaches control charging of the battery cells evenly (¶’s [45, 48, 49]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that an imbalance/unevenness of the cells can be damaging to the batteries, thus ensuring the battery charge is balanced/even serve to improve safety (¶[52])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taka in view of Corho with King to provide improved safety.
Dependent Claim 19, the combination of Taka and Corho teaches the power board (Taka element 152 including mos switch (¶’s [58, 65], which corresponds to [62, 63] of Fig. 6).
Taka is silent to during the discharge mode, if the battery monitoring system detects a discharge current from the lithium battery over a pre-determined threshold, the battery monitoring system instructs a battery to disengage the discharge bias to disable discharge of the lithium battery.
King teaches during the discharge mode, if the battery monitoring system detects a discharge current from the lithium battery (¶’s [38, 49]) over a pre-determined threshold, the battery monitoring system instructs a battery to disengage the discharge bias to disable discharge of the lithium battery (overcurrent, ¶’s [43, 45, 47, 48, 51, esp. 47, 48, 51]). ¶’s [51, 52] states that preventing use of the circuit during these periods serve to improve the safety of the circuit by preventing damage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taka in view of Corho with King to provide improved safety.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859