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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments receive in the Remarks filed on November 4th, 2025:
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending in the current application, claims 1, 4-6, and 8-21 are amended, claim 7 has been cancelled, and the mis-numbered claims have been corrected.
Claim 1 has been amended to specify the middle wall is constructed “entirely” of one interlaced multifilament flame-resistant yarn or non-woven material and to exclude “textile”
Claim 4 has been amended to specify the middle wall is “entirely” one of a woven layer, knitted layer, or a non-woven layer.
Claim 5 has been amended to specify the middle wall includes, “in its entirety”, a pair of woven layers or knitted layers
Claim 6 has been amended to specify the middle layer is woven or knitted “entirely” from mineral yarns
Misnumbered claim 7 has been renumbered to claim 8 and has been amended to specify the middle wall, “in its entirety” is a non-woven layer.
Misnumbered claim 8 has been renumbered to claim 9.
Misnumbered claim 9 has been renumbered to claim 10.
Misnumbered claim 10 has been renumbered to claim 11, and is now dependent from claim 10.
Misnumbered claim 11 has been renumbered to claim 12, and is now dependent from claim 10.
Misnumbered claim 12 has been renumbered to claim 13, and has been amended to specify the middle wall is constructed “entirely” of one interlaced multifilament flame-resistant yarn or non-woven material and to exclude “textile”.
Misnumbered claim 13 has been renumbered to claim 14, and has been amended to specify the middle wall is constructed “entirely” of one woven or knitted multifilament flame-resistant yarn or non-woven material.
Misnumbered claim 14 has been renumbered to claim 15, and is now dependent from claim 14.
Misnumbered claim 15 has been renumbered to claim 16, and is now dependent from claim 14.
Misnumbered claim 16 has been renumbered to claim 17, and is now dependent from claim 16.
Misnumbered claim 17 has been renumbered to claim 18, and is now dependent from claim 14, and has been amended to specify the middle wall is “entirely” a non-woven material and exclude “textile”.
Misnumbered claim 18 has been renumbered to claim 19, and is now dependent from claim 14.
Misnumbered claim 19 has been renumbered to claim 20, and is now dependent from claim 14.
Misnumbered claim 20 has been renumbered to claim 21, and is now dependent from claim 20.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending from the Office Action of August 20th, 2025:
The previous Claim Objections regarding the numbering of the claims have been overcome in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on November 4th, 2025.
The previous Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been overcome in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on November 4th, 2025.
The previous Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) have been maintained view of the amendments received in the Remarks on November 4th, 2025.
The previous Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been maintained in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on November 4th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 4th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the intermediate ply as taught by Stude is not a middle wall constructed entirely of one interlaced multifilament flame-resistant yarn or non-woven material, nor would a person possessing ordinary skill in the art, a POSA, be prompted to modify the intermediate ply to be constructed as such.
Applicant argues that Stude teaches nothing more than the intermediate layers being fluid/gas impervious, and it would not be obvious to a POSA based on the paragraphs […] by Stude to conclude the intermediate layers would have outer peripheries bonded to one another as Examiner contends. Further, the outer peripheries of the various layers of Stude are not shown in the drawing, which leaves a POSA no direction other than to assume they extend to flush cut peripheries, as would be expected and Examiner has used improper hindsight in direct view.
In response to applicants’ argument regarding the intermediate ply, Stude teaches at least one fiber layer (Stude, 5; figure 1A-1C), wherein the fiber layer is formed from a needled and/or bonded nonwoven [Stude, 0071 & 0072], wherein the fiber layer, as shown in figure 1A-1C comprises opposite sides in which the cover layers, corresponding to the intermediate layers of the claim, are bonded to [Stude, 0035], therefore, the fiber layer as taught by Stude, comprised entirely of a non-woven material, corresponds to the middle layer of the claim. Further, Stude teaches that preferably the fiber layers of the intermediate ply are separated from each other by an interlayer [Stude, 0079], the first structure taught by Stude does not comprise an interlayer [Stude, 0141], compared to the second structure which does teach an interlayer [Stude, 0152], indicating the interlay is an optional, preferred embodiment.
In response to applicant argument regarding the pair of intermediate layers not having an outer periphery that extends beyond an outer periphery of said middle wall, wherein the outer peripheries of the intermediate layers being bonded to one another to encapsulate the middle wall, as previously stated, Stude teaches at least one cover layer is designed to be liquid-tight, preferably waterproof, moreover, both cover layers are preferably designed to be water repellent and/or gas-tight as to efficiently protect the intermediate ply and/or fiber layer [Stude, 0021]. Therefore, if the cover layers did not extend to the outer peripheries of the intermediate ply, to encapsulate an outer periphery of the intermediate ply, it would not be possible to efficiently protect the intermediate ply in a humid and/or gaseous environment because the peripheries would be exposed, therefore, based on the teaching of Stude, and the desired result of the design, it is not inventive nor an improper use of hindsight in direct view to conclude a POSA would find the cover layers having outer peripheries bonded to one another obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 10-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stude et al, US 20210074960 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 1, Stude discloses a multi-layer heat insulation element (Stude, 1; Figure 1A-1C) for the thermal insulation of a battery [Stude, 0012], a battery configured for the drive of electric vehicles [Stude, 0004], wherein the heat insulation element comprises a intermediate ply (Stude, 4; Figure 1A-1C) with at least one fiber layer(Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C), the fiber layer corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, wherein the at least one fiber layer [Stude, 0071] formed of a non-woven material [Stude, 0072]. Figure 1A-1C of Stude depicting the fiber layer comprising opposite sides in which the cover layers (Stude, 2, 3; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the intermediate layers of the claim, are bonded to [Stude, 0035]. Furthermore, the heat insulation element comprises an adhesive layer (Stude, 7; Figure 1A), corresponding to the pair of out layer of the claim, because there is at least an adhesive layer on one flat side of the element, allowing for easy arrangement/attachment onto the battery or additional elements, therefore, indicating the probability of an adhesive layer on both intermediate layers, as figure 3 of Stude depict a battery pack (Stude, 8; Figure 3) comprising multiple battery cells (Stude, 12; Figure 3) and multiple heat insulation elements (Stude, 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D; Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Stude discloses the battery cell interface material of claim 1, wherein at least one cover layer (Stude, 2,3; Figure 1A-1C), is connected to the adhesive layer (Stude, 7; Figure 1A), to attach/fix the heat insulation element (Stude, 1; Figure 1A-1C) to the battery or another element [Stude, 0102]. The adhesive layer may be designed as a double-sided adhesive tape [Stude, 0104].
Regarding Claim 3, Stude discloses the battery cell interface material of claim 2, wherein the fiber layer (Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the middle wall, comprised of a reinforced needled non-woven glass fiber fabric has a preferred thickness of 3 mm [Stude, 0141], which falls withing the claimed range of 0.5 mm to 5 mm.
Regarding Claim 4 Stude discloses the battery cell interface material of claim 2, wherein fiber layer (Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, comprising at least one fiber layer (Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C)[Stude, 0071], wherein the fiber layer is formed from a needled and/or bonded nonwoven, wherein needled nonwoven is understood as textile fabric, the fibers of which are randomly intertwined and bonded by dry needling and/or needling without a binder and/or melting beads [Stude, 0072], corresponding to the knitted layer and non-woven layer requirements of the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Stude discloses the battery cell interface material of claim 2, wherein fiber layer (Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, is contained within the intermediate ply, that preferably comprises two fiber layers, in particular of needled nonwoven material [Stude, 0029], corresponding to the claimed requirement of knitted layers overlaying one another.
Regarding Claim 10, Stude discloses the battery cell interface material of claim 2, wherein the cover layers (Stude, 2,3; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the intermediate layers of the claim, are designed as heat-resistant mica layers, preferably mica paper layer or mica board [Stude, 0027].
Regarding Claim 11, Stude discloses the battery cell interface material of claim 10, wherein the cover layers (Stude, 2,3; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the intermediate layers of the claim, have a thickness preferably between 0.05 mm and 0.15 mm [Stude, 0027].
Regarding Claim 12, Stude discloses the battery cell interface material of claim 10, wherein the cover layers (Stude, 2,3; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the intermediate layers of the claim, and the intermediate ply (Stude, 4; Figure 1A-1C), comprising the fiber layer corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, are glued together or otherwise joined to form a bond, as to form a mechanically stable layered composite [Stude, 0035], corresponding to the pressure sensitive adhesive bond of the claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Stude discloses a multi-layer heat insulation element (Stude, 1; Figure 1A-1C) for the thermal insulation of a battery [Stude, 0012], a battery configured for the drive of electric vehicles [Stude, 0004], wherein the heat insulation element comprises a intermediate ply (Stude, 4; Figure 1A-1C), with at least one fiber layer(Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C), the fiber layer corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, wherein the at least one fiber layer [Stude, 0071] formed of a non-woven material [Stude, 0072]. Figure 1A-1C of Stude depicting the fiber layer comprising opposite sides in which the cover layers (Stude, 2, 3; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the intermediate layers of the claim, are bonded to [Stude, 0035]. Furthermore, the heat insulation element comprises an adhesive layer (Stude, 7; Figure 1A), corresponding to the pair of out layer of the claim, because there is at least an adhesive or self-adhesive layer on one flat side of the element, allowing for easy arrangement/attachment onto the battery or additional elements, therefore, indicating the probability of an adhesive layer on both intermediate layers, as figure 3 of Stude depict a battery pack (Stude, 8; Figure 3) comprising multiple battery cells (Stude, 12; Figure 3) and multiple heat insulation elements (Stude, 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D; Figure 3). Figure 1A-1C depict the layered configuration of the heat insulation element, wherein the intermediate ply has a cover layer on either side, and the adhesive layer is uses to attach/fix the element to a part of the battery [Stude, 0102], and therefore is facing a cell wall as required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 14, Stude discloses a multi-layer heat insulation element (Stude, 1; Figure 1A-1C) for the thermal insulation of a battery [Stude, 0012], a battery (Stude, 8; Figure 3) comprising a plurality of battery cells (Stude, 12; Figure 3), configured for the drive of electric vehicles [Stude, 0004], wherein the heat insulation element comprises a intermediate ply (Stude, 4; Figure 1A-1C), with at least one fiber layer(Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C), the fiber layer corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, wherein the at least one fiber layer [Stude, 0071] formed of a non-woven material [Stude, 0072]. Figure 1A-1C of Stude depicting the fiber layer comprising opposite sides in which the cover layers (Stude, 2, 3; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the intermediate layers of the claim, are bonded to [Stude, 0035]. Furthermore, the heat insulation element comprises an adhesive layer (Stude, 7; Figure 1A), corresponding to the pair of out layer of the claim, because there is at least an adhesive or self-adhesive layer on one flat side of the element, allowing for easy arrangement/attachment onto the battery or additional elements, therefore, indicating the probability of an adhesive layer on both intermediate layers, as figure 3 of Stude depict a battery pack (Stude, 8; Figure 3) comprising multiple battery cells (Stude, 12; Figure 3) and multiple heat insulation elements (Stude, 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D; Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Stude discloses the battery cell interface material of claim 14, wherein the fiber layer (Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C), preferably comprises two layers of needle woven material [Stude, 0029], corresponding to the claimed requirement of knitted layers overlaying one another.
Regarding Claim 20, Stude discloses the battery cell interface material of claim 14, wherein the cover layers (Stude, 2,3; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the intermediate layers of the claim, have a thickness preferably between 0.05 mm and 0.15 mm [Stude, 0027].
Regarding Claim 21, Stude discloses the battery cell interface material of claim 20, wherein the cover layers (Stude, 2,3; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the intermediate layers of the claim, and the intermediate ply (Stude, 4; Figure 1A-1C), comprising the fiber layer corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, are glued together or otherwise joined to form a bond, as to form a mechanically stable layered composite [Stude, 0035], corresponding to the pressure sensitive adhesive bond of the claim.
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.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude et al, US 20210074960 A1 (already on the record), as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of and Simon, Hubert, EP 3269540 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 6, Stude teaches the battery cell interface material of claim 2, wherein the fiber layer (Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, is in particular of needled nonwoven material [Stude, 0029], but is silent to teach on the middle wall being woven or knitted from mineral yarns.
Simon teaches a layered composite, comprising a fiber mat [Simon, 0011], corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, wherein the inorganic fibers contained in the mat are preferably selected from glass, basalt, ceramic, alumina, zirconia, silica and aluminum silicate fibers, such as mullite [Simon, 0030], and can be woven or non-woven [Simon, 0031]. According to paragraph 0020 of the instant specification, fiberglass, ceramic, silica and basalt are considered mineral yarn.
Simon and Stude are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices, specifically composite/interface materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Stude to include the fiber materials taught by Simon because such modification would allow the materials to withstand permanent temperatures up to 1400 °C [Simon, 0030].
Regarding Claim 8 Stude teaches the battery cell interface material of claim 2, wherein the fiber layer (Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C), corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, is in particular of needled nonwoven material [Stude, 0029], but is silent tot each on the middle wall being a non-woven layer formed of at least one of fiber glass, ceramic fibers, silica fibers, and basalt fibers.
Simon teaches a layered composite, wherein the compressible layer comprises a fiber mat [Simon, 0011], corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, wherein the inorganic fibers contained in the mat are preferably selected from glass, basalt, ceramic, alumina, zirconia, silica and aluminum silicate fibers, such as mullite [Simon, 0030], and can be woven or non-woven [Simon, 0031]. According to paragraph 0020 of the instant specification, fiberglass, ceramic, silica and basalt are considered mineral yarn.
Simon and Stude are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices, specifically composite/interface materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Stude to include the fiber materials taught by Simon because such modification would allow the materials to withstand permanent temperatures up to 1400 °C [Simon, 0030].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stude et al, US 20210074960 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 9, Stude teaches the battery cell interface material of claim 2, but is silent to teach on the pair of intermediate layers having an outer periphery that extends beyond and out periphery of said middle wall, said outer peripheries of said intermediate layers being bonded to one another to encapsulate said outer periphery of said middle wall.
While Stude does not explicitly teach the intermediate layer having an outer periphery that extends beyond and encapsulates the middle wall or for the peripheries of the intermediate layer to be bonded to one another, however, Stude teaches the cover layers (Stude, 2,3; Figure 1A-1C), are designed to be liquid-tight, preferably waterproof, water-repellant and/or gas-tight, to efficiently protect and ensure efficient thermal insulation of the intermediate ply comprising the fiber layers [Stude, 0021], therefore, it would be obvious for the cover layers, corresponding to the claimed intermediate layers, to extend beyond and encapsulate the intermediate ply comprising the fiber layer that corresponds to the claimed middle wall, as required by the claim. There is a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the outer peripheries of the intermediate layers of Stude, such that they extend beyond the middle wall and are bonded to one another to encapsulate the middle wall, or they do not extend or encapsulated the middle wall. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the cover layers, to extend beyond and encapsulate the intermediate ply to protect and ensure efficient thermal insulation of the intermediate ply, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude et al, US 20210074960 A1 (already on the record), as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of and Simon, Hubert, EP 3269540 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 16, Stude teaches the battery cell interface material of claim 14, wherein the fiber layer (Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C) is needle non-woven [Stude, 0029], but is silent to teach wherein the flame-resistant yarn is mineral yarn.
Simon teaches a layered composite, comprising a fiber mat [Simon, 0011], corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, wherein the inorganic fibers contained in the mat are preferably selected from glass, basalt, ceramic, alumina, zirconia, silica and aluminum silicate fibers, such as mullite [Simon, 0030], and can be woven or non-woven [Simon, 0031]. According to paragraph 0019 and 0020 of the instant specification, fiberglass, ceramic, silica and basalt are considered mineral yarn, and the flame-resistant yarn is mineral yarn.
Simon and Stude are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices, specifically composite/interface materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Stude to include the fiber materials taught by Simon because such modification would allow the materials to withstand permanent temperatures up to 1400 °C [Simon, 0030].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Stude teaches the battery cell interface material of claim 16, wherein the fiber layer (Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C) is needle non-woven [Stude, 0029], but is silent to teach on the middle wall being woven or knitted from mineral yarns.
Simon teaches a layered composite, comprising a fiber mat [Simon, 0011], corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, wherein the inorganic fibers contained in the mat are preferably selected from glass, basalt, ceramic, alumina, zirconia, silica and aluminum silicate fibers, such as mullite [Simon, 0030], and can be woven or non-woven [Simon, 0031]. According to paragraph 0020 of the instant specification, fiberglass, ceramic, silica and basalt are considered mineral yarn.
Simon and Stude are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices, specifically composite/interface materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Stude to include the fiber materials taught by Simon because such modification would allow the materials to withstand permanent temperatures up to 1400 °C [Simon, 0030].
Regarding Claim 18, Stude teaches the battery cell interface material of claim 14, wherein the fiber layer (Stude, 5; Figure 1A-1C) is needle non-woven [Stude, 0029], but is silent to teach on the middle wall being a non-woven layer formed of at least one of fiber glass, ceramic fibers, silica fibers, and basalt fibers.
Simon teaches a layered composite, wherein the compressible layer comprises a fiber mat [Simon, 0011], corresponding to the middle wall of the claim, wherein the inorganic fibers contained in the mat are preferably selected from glass, basalt, ceramic, alumina, zirconia, silica and aluminum silicate fibers, such as mullite [Simon, 0030], and can be woven or non-woven [Simon, 0031]. According to paragraph 0020 of the instant specification, fiberglass, ceramic, silica and basalt are considered mineral yarn.
Simon and Stude are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices, specifically composite/interface materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Stude to include the fiber materials taught by Simon because such modification would allow the materials to withstand permanent temperatures up to 1400 °C [Simon, 0030].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stude et al, US 20210074960 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 19, Stude teaches the battery cell interface material of claim 14, but is silent to teach on the pair of intermediate layers having an outer periphery that extends beyond and out periphery of said middle wall, said outer peripheries of said intermediate layers being bonded to one another to encapsulate said outer periphery of said middle wall.
While Stude does not explicitly teach the intermediate layer having an outer periphery that extends beyond and encapsulates the middle wall or for the peripheries of the intermediate layer to be bonded to one another, however, Stude teaches the cover layers (Stude, 2,3; Figure 1A-1C), are designed to be liquid-tight, preferably waterproof, water-repellant and/or gas-tight, to efficiently protect and ensure efficient thermal insulation of the intermediate ply comprising the fiber layers [Stude, 0021], therefore, it would be obvious for the cover layers, corresponding to the claimed intermediate layers, to extend beyond and encapsulate the intermediate ply comprising the fiber layer that corresponds to the claimed middle wall, as required by the claim. There is a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the outer peripheries of the intermediate layers of Stude, such that they extend beyond the middle wall and are bonded to one another to encapsulate the middle wall, or they do not extend or encapsulated the middle wall. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the cover layers, to extend beyond and encapsulate the intermediate ply to protect and ensure efficient thermal insulation of the intermediate ply, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
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 LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722