DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 4-5, 8-9, 14-15, and 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the nozzle includes a radial flow nozzle that delivers the amount of gas into the housing.” This is unclear because Claim 1 (on which Claim 4 depends) requires the is nozzle to be an axial flow nozzle.
Claim 5 is rejected due to its dependence on Claim 4.
Claim 8 recites “the dual direction axial flow nozzle.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependence on Claim 8.
Claim 14 recites “the nozzle includes a radial flow nozzle that delivers the amount of gas into the housing.” This is unclear because Claim 11 (on which Claim 4 depends) requires the is nozzle to be an axial flow nozzle.
Claim 15 is rejected due to its dependence on Claim 14.
Claim 18 recites “the dual direction axial flow nozzle.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected due to its dependence on Claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandahl et al. (US-20220401770-A1) in view of Oki et al. (JP-2018063765-A) and Lee et al. (US-20220359947-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sandahl discloses:
A rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) including a thermal runaway propagation (TRP) mitigation system comprising (fire suppression system 10 for lithium-ion battery racks, see [0036]):
a housing including at least one housing outlet (vents 62 are provided in storage container 68, see [0060]);
a plurality of energy storage cells arranged in the housing (storage container 68 houses the battery racks 16 which contain battery cells, see [0054], [0042], and Fig. 4);
at least one duct extending along the plurality of energy storage cells (pipe 840 and nozzles 842 are configured to provide fire suppression agent onto battery racks 16 and/or throughout internal volume 64, see [0061] and Fig. 8),
the at least one duct being fluidically connected to the at least one housing outlet, the at least one housing outlet having a housing outlet direction (fire suppression apparatus 20 provides the fire suppression agent to internal volume 64 of storage container 68 (via pipe 840/nozzles 842, see [0061]), vents 62 are opened to vent out of storage container 68 allowing the fire suppression agent to flood substantially the entirety of internal volume 64, see [0060]);
and a gas delivery system is arranged at the housing (Sandahl describes a fire suppression attachment 74 (i.e., a gas delivery system) that is either fixedly of removably coupled to a battery storage container 68 (i.e., housing), see [0062]),
the gas delivery system including a gas storage canister (“Cartridge 820 defines an internal volume 822 configured to contain a volume of pressurized expellant gas,” see [0103])
operable to deliver an amount of gas into the housing to purge combustible gases through the at least one housing outlet (fire suppression apparatus 20 provides the fire suppression agent to internal volume 64 of storage container 68 (via pipe 840/nozzles 842, see [0061]), vents 62 are opened to vent out of storage container 68 allowing the fire suppression agent (which can suitably include an inert gas, see [0103]) to flood substantially the entirety of internal volume 64, see [0060]),
wherein the gas storage canister is fluidly connected to a nozzle configured to deliver the amount of gas into the housing (“Cartridge 820 defines an internal volume 822 configured to contain a volume of pressurized expellant gas,” see [0103]. The fire suppressant agent (which can suitably include an inert gas, see [0103]) flows through pipe 840 and to nozzles 842, see [0107].),
Sandahl is silent to the exact structure of the nozzles and how the nozzles are directed with respect to the housing outlet direction. Therefore, Sandahl does not teach this following limitations:
the nozzle includes an axial flow nozzle having a first outlet positioned to deliver the amount of gas into the housing in a first direction,
and the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the housing outlet direction.
To solve the same problem of designing a thermal runaway suppression system to disperse a gas to a battery system (see Abstract and [0029]), Oki teaches disposing nozzles 45 between battery modules 33 that have an axial direction (see Oki-Fig. 14a and [0089]-[0090]) that is consistent with directionally shown in the instant specification Figs. 2 and 5 and is discussed as being a dual direction axial nozzle, see instant-spec [0037]. Oki further teaches this nozzle structure allows for the dispersant to be directed between two battery modules towards the centers of the sides of two adjacent battery modules, see [0084] and Fig. 14a.
Note, Sandahl is open to modification of the nozzle shape and direction in order to direct the spray pattern of the fire suppressant agent to areas of interest, see [0107].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provided the branched nozzles of Oki for the structure of the nozzles of Sandahl to direct the fire suppressant agent to two adjacent battery modules.
The modification of Sandahl in view of Oki does not teach:
and the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the housing outlet direction.
To solve the same problem of designing a fire extinguishing unit for a battery (see Abstract), Lee teaches selecting the placement of the fire extinguishing agent inlet and gas discharge holes in order to allow the fire extinguishing agent to flow through gas passages, see [0086]-[0088]. Lee further teaches these design choices make it possible to extinguish and cool the ignited or overheated batteries, see [0088]. Therefore, the teachings of Lee indicates that it behooves the skilled artisan to design the placement of the inlet of the fire extinguishing agent and the outlet to be provided in such a manner to propagate the flow of the fire extinguishing agent to effectively to extinguish and cool the ignited or overheated batteries.
The placement of the axial direction of the nozzle taught by Oki with respect to the outlet direction of Sandahl a problem with a finite number of predictable potential solutions, namely, to have 1) the outlet direction be perpendicular to the axial direction of the nozzle or 2) the outlet direction not be perpendicular to the axial direction of the nozzle. It is the Examiners position that either of the presented predictable solution are obvious.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention have pursued the presented known potential solution of having the outlet direction be perpendicular to the axial direction of the nozzle in order to effectively to extinguish and cool the ignited or overheated batteries (as taught by Lee) with the reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, Sandahl in view of Oki teaches:
wherein the axial flow nozzle includes a dual direction axial flow nozzle including the first outlet and a second outlet positioned to deliver the amount of gas into the housing in a second direction that is opposite the first direction (see Oki-Fig. 14a ).
Regarding Claim 3, Sandahl discloses:
further comprising a valve element controlling flow of gas from the gas storage zone to the nozzle (“neck 824 includes a valve that selectively prevents the expellant gas from flowing through neck 824,” see [0105]. The neck 824 fluidly connects to the pipe 840 and nozzles 842, see Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Sandahl teaches:
wherein the amount of gas is one of an inert gas, an extinguishing agent, and combinations thereof ( a gaseous fire suppression agent such as an inert or chemical gaseous fire suppression agent, see [0100]).
Regarding Claim 6 and 7, Sandahl in view of Oki teaches the following limitation based on annotated Sandahl-Fig. 8 below and Oki-Fig. 14a:
(per Claim 6) wherein the at least one duct includes a first duct extending through the housing in a first duct direction and a second duct extending through the housing in a second duct direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first duct direction, the second duct crossing the first duct at a first intersection.
(per Claim 7) wherein the nozzle includes a first nozzle arranged in the first duct and a second nozzle arranged at the first intersection (although the nozzle structure was modified in view of Oki above, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill could readily envision the require structure of this limitation based on the annotated Sandahl-Fig. 8 below and Oki-Fig. 14a).
PNG
media_image1.png
1053
1426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Sandahl in view of Oki and Lee is silent toward the claimed structure of:
wherein the first nozzle is a dual direction axial flow nozzle and the second nozzle is a radial flow nozzle.
However, Sandahl teaches:
“Nozzles 842 each define one or more apertures, through which the fire suppressant agent exits, forming a spray of fire suppressant agent that covers a desired area. The sprays from nozzles 842 then suppress or extinguish fire within that area. The apertures of nozzles 842 may be shaped to control the spray pattern of the fire suppressant agent leaving nozzles 842. Nozzles 842 may be aimed such that the sprays cover specific points of interest...” see [0107].
This disclosure teaches that shape of the nozzle apertures are a result effective variables that control the dispersion of the fire suppressant agent specific points of interest.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have optimized the shape of the nozzle at different areas to arrive at the desired effect of aiming the fire suppressant agent to specific points of interest.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “wherein the first nozzle is a dual direction axial flow nozzle and the second nozzle is a radial flow nozzle,” without undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 9, Sandahl does not necessarily teach:
further comprising a third duct extending through the housing in the second direction, the third duct being spaced from the second duct and crossing the first duct at a second intersection, wherein a third nozzle is arranged at the second intersection.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandahl et al. (US-20220401770-A1) in view of Oki et al. (JP-2018063765-A) and Lee et al. (US-20220359947-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of Murray (US20220288435A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Sandahl teaches “the apertures of nozzles 842 may be shaped to control the spray pattern of the fire suppressant agent leaving nozzles 842,” see [0107]. However, Sandahl is silent toward the aperture structure of the nozzles used to deliver the fire suppression agent. Therefore, Sandahl is does not teach:
wherein the nozzle includes a radial flow nozzle that delivers the amount of gas into the housing.
To solve the same problem of preventing the spread of fire in a battery pack (see Murray-[0001]), Murray teaches a fire suppression apparatus which can use combinations of nozzles with axial and radial spray arrangements, see Murray-[0058]. Additionally, Sandahl teaches having nozzle apertures that are shaped to control the spray pattern of the fire suppressant agent in order to aim the sprays to cover specific points of interest, see Sandahl-[0107].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used a combinations of nozzles with axial and radial spray arrangements as taught by Murray for the nozzle aperture shapes of Sandahl to aim the fire suppressant agent to cover specific points of interest.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Sandahl in view of Oki and Lee teaches a dual direction axial nozzle having a first and second outlet positioned in opposite directions (see Oki-Fig. 14a) that would be obvious to dispose in a position that is perpendicular to the housing outlet, as given above. Therefore, Sandahl in view of Oki and Lee teaches:
wherein the first direction and the second direction are substantially perpendicular to the housing outlet direction.
However, Sandahl teaches including various nozzles 842 into the fire suppression system, see [0061]. Additionally, Sandahl shows in annotated Fig. 4 below a second and third duct which are spaced apart with the third duct having a second intersection.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have a third nozzle with the structure show in annotated Fig. 8 above base on the embodiment show in Fig. 4, because Sandahl teaches these are a suitable configurations for the fire suppression system.
PNG
media_image2.png
849
1297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11-13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandahl et al. (US-20220401770-A1) in view of Sandahl et al. (US-20220407174-A1, referred to as Sandahl-2), Oki et al. (JP-2018063765-A), and Lee (US-20220359947-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Sandahl teaches the following limitations with modification from Sandal-2, Oki, and Lee:
A vehicle comprising: a body ( fire suppression system 810 may be incorporated into a land-based vehicle, see [0101]);
Sandahl is silent toward how the fire suppression system 810 is incorporated into the vehicle
an electric motor supported relative to the body;
and a rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) including a thermal runaway propagation (TRP) mitigation system operatively connected to the electric motor,
To solve the same problem of providing a fire suppression system for a battery system (see Abstract), Sandahl-2 teaches a vehicle with an electric motor which is configured to draw power from the battery cells, see [0014]. This disclosure teaches that the structure of his invention is a conventional and successful structure for an electric vehicle.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in having the vehicle of Sandahl with an electric motor which is configured to draw power from the battery cells as taught by Sandahl-2.
the RESS comprising: a housing including at least one housing outlet (vents 62 are provided in storage container 68, see [0060]);
a plurality of energy storage cells arranged in the housing (storage container 68 houses the battery racks 16 which contain battery cells, see [0054], [0042], and Fig. 4);
at least one duct extending along the plurality of energy storage cells (pipe 840 and nozzles 842 are configured to provide fire suppression agent onto battery racks 16 and/or throughout internal volume 64, see [0061] and Fig. 8),
the at least one duct being fluidically connected to the at least one housing outlet, the at least one housing outlet having a housing outlet direction (fire suppression apparatus 20 provides the fire suppression agent to internal volume 64 of storage container 68 (via pipe 840/nozzles 842, see [0061]), vents 62 are opened to vent out of storage container 68 allowing the fire suppression agent to flood substantially the entirety of internal volume 64, see [0060]);
and a gas delivery system is arranged at the housing (Sandahl describes a fire suppression attachment 74 (i.e., a gas delivery system) that is either fixedly of removably coupled to a battery storage container 68 (i.e., housing), see [0062]),
the gas delivery system including a gas storage canister (“Cartridge 820 defines an internal volume 822 configured to contain a volume of pressurized expellant gas,” see [0103])
operable to deliver an amount of gas into the housing to purge combustible gases through the at least one housing outlet (fire suppression apparatus 20 provides the fire suppression agent to internal volume 64 of storage container 68 (via pipe 840/nozzles 842, see [0061]), vents 62 are opened to vent out of storage container 68 allowing the fire suppression agent (which can suitably include an inert gas, see [0103]) to flood substantially the entirety of internal volume 64, see [0060]).
wherein the gas storage canister is fluidly connected to a nozzle configured to deliver the amount of gas into the housing (“Cartridge 820 defines an internal volume 822 configured to contain a volume of pressurized expellant gas,” see [0103]. The fire suppressant agent (which can suitably include an inert gas, see [0103]) flows through pipe 840 and to nozzles 842, see [0107].),
Sandahl is silent to the exact structure of the nozzles and how the nozzles are directed with respect to the housing outlet direction. Therefore, Sandahl does not teach this following limitations:
the nozzle includes an axial flow nozzle having a first outlet positioned to deliver the amount of gas into the housing in a first direction,
and the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the housing outlet direction.
To solve the same problem of designing a thermal runaway suppression system to disperse a gas to a battery system (see Abstract and [0029]), Oki teaches disposing nozzles 45 between battery modules 33 that have an axial direction (see Oki-Fig. 14a and [0089]-[0090]) that is consistent with directionally shown in the instant specification Figs. 2 and 5 and is discussed as being a dual direction axial nozzle, see instant-spec [0037]. Oki further teaches this nozzle structure allows for the dispersant to be directed between two battery modules towards the centers of the sides of two adjacent battery modules, see [0084] and Fig. 14a.
Note, Sandahl is open to modification of the nozzle shape and direction in order to direct the spray pattern of the fire suppressant agent to areas of interest, see [0107].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provided the branched nozzles of Oki for the structure of the nozzles of Sandahl to direct the fire suppressant agent to two adjacent battery modules.
The modification of Sandahl in view of Oki does not teach:
and the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the housing outlet direction.
To solve the same problem of designing a fire extinguishing unit for a battery (see Abstract), Lee teaches selecting the placement of the fire extinguishing agent inlet and gas discharge holes in order to allow the fire extinguishing agent to flow through gas passages, see [0086]-[0088]. Lee further teaches these design choices make it possible to extinguish and cool the ignited or overheated batteries, see [0088]. Therefore, the teachings of Lee indicates that it behooves the skilled artisan to design the placement of the inlet of the fire extinguishing agent and the outlet to be provided in such a manner to propagate the flow of the fire extinguishing agent to effectively to extinguish and cool the ignited or overheated batteries.
The placement of the axial direction of the nozzle taught by Oki with respect to the outlet direction of Sandahl a problem with a finite number of predictable potential solutions, namely, to have 1) the outlet direction be perpendicular to the axial direction of the nozzle or 2) the outlet direction not be perpendicular to the axial direction of the nozzle. It is the Examiners position that either of the presented predictable solution are obvious.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention have pursued the presented known potential solution of having the outlet direction be perpendicular to the axial direction of the nozzle in order to effectively to extinguish and cool the ignited or overheated batteries (as taught by Lee) with the reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 12, Sandahl in view of Oki teaches:
wherein the axial flow nozzle includes a dual direction axial flow nozzle including the first outlet and a second outlet positioned to deliver the amount of gas into the housing in a second direction that is opposite the first direction (see Oki-Fig. 14a ).
Regarding Claim 13, Sandahl discloses:
further comprising a valve element controlling flow of gas from the gas storage zone to the nozzle (“neck 824 includes a valve that selectively prevents the expellant gas from flowing through neck 824,” see [0105]. The neck 824 fluidly connects to the pipe 840 and nozzles 842, see Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 20, Sandahl teaches:
wherein the amount of gas is one of an inert gas, an extinguishing agent, and combinations thereof ( a gaseous fire suppression agent such as an inert or chemical gaseous fire suppression agent, see [0100]).
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandahl et al. (US-20220401770-A1) in view of Sandahl et al. (US-20220407174-A1, referred to as Sandahl-2), Oki et al. (JP-2018063765-A), and Lee (US-20220359947-A1) as applied to Claim 11 above and in further view of Murray (US20220288435A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Sandahl teaches “the apertures of nozzles 842 may be shaped to control the spray pattern of the fire suppressant agent leaving nozzles 842,” see [0107]. However, Sandahl is silent toward the aperture structure of the nozzles used to deliver the fire suppression agent. Therefore, Sandahl is does not teach:
wherein the nozzle includes a radial flow nozzle that delivers the amount of gas into the housing.
To solve the same problem of preventing the spread of fire in a battery pack (see Murray-[0001]), Murray teaches a fire suppression apparatus which can use combinations of nozzles with axial and radial spray arrangements, see Murray-[0058]. Additionally, Sandahl teaches having nozzle apertures that are shaped to control the spray pattern of the fire suppressant agent in order to aim the sprays to cover specific points of interest, see Sandahl-[0107].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used a combinations of nozzles with axial and radial spray arrangements as taught by Murray for the nozzle aperture shapes of Sandahl to aim the fire suppressant agent to cover specific points of interest.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Sandahl in view of Murray teaches the axial nozzle has a first and second outlet positioned in opposite directions, see Fig. 6. This structure teaches the following limitations:
wherein the axial flow nozzle comprises a dual direction axial flow nozzle including a first outlet positioned to deliver the amount of gas into the housing in a first direction and a second outlet positioned to deliver the amount of gas into the housing in a second direction that is opposite the first direction.
Regarding Claim 16 and 17, Sandahl’s annotated Fig. 8 above teaches the following:
(per Claim 16) wherein the at least one duct includes a first duct extending through the housing in a first duct direction and a second duct extending through the housing in a second duct direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first duct direction, the second duct crossing the first duct at a first intersection.
(per Claim 17) wherein the nozzle includes a first nozzle arranged in the first duct and a second nozzle arranged at the first intersection (although the nozzle structure was modified in view of Oki above, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill could readily envision the require structure of this limitation based on the annotated Sandahl-Fig. 8 above and Oki-Fig. 14a).
Regarding Claim 18, Sandahl in view of Murray is silent toward the claimed structure of:
wherein the first nozzle is the dual direction axial flow nozzle and the second nozzle is a radial flow nozzle.
However, Sandahl teaches:
“Nozzles 842 each define one or more apertures, through which the fire suppressant agent exits, forming a spray of fire suppressant agent that covers a desired area. The sprays from nozzles 842 then suppress or extinguish fire within that area. The apertures of nozzles 842 may be shaped to control the spray pattern of the fire suppressant agent leaving nozzles 842. Nozzles 842 may be aimed such that the sprays cover specific points of interest...” see [0107].
This disclosure teaches that shape of the nozzle apertures are a result effective variables that control the dispersion of the fire suppressant agent specific points of interest.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have optimized the shape of the nozzle at different areas to arrive at the desired effect of aiming the fire suppressant agent to specific points of interest.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “wherein the first nozzle is a dual direction axial flow nozzle and the second nozzle is a radial flow nozzle,” without undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 19, Sandahl does not necessarily teach:
further comprising a third duct extending through the housing in the second duct direction, the third duct being spaced from the second duct and crossing the first duct at a second intersection, wherein a third nozzle is arranged at the second intersection.
However, Sandahl teaches including various nozzles 842 into the fire suppression system, see [0061]. Additionally, Sandahl shows in annotated Fig. 4 above a second and third duct which are spaced apart with the third duct having a second intersection.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have a third nozzle with the structure show in annotated Fig. 8 above base on the embodiment show in Fig. 4, because Sandahl teaches these are a suitable configurations for the fire suppression system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Double patenting
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection in view of application number 17973933 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims (see Claims 2-3 and 12-13) of reference application ‘933 only teaches using a radial nozzle and not an axial nozzle. The double patenting rejection of Claims 1 and 11 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oki and Lee as given above.
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 Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights