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 .
Priority
Although the Examiner acknowledges that a priority acknowledgement with a date of June 15, 2018 was made in Application 15/027,592, the Examiner again notes that a copy of the certified foreign application was not found in the application file. Specifically, the Examiner notes that the Notice of Allowance for application 15/027,592 (mailed on 06/07/2018) indicates that none of the certified copies of the priority documents were received. Such a finding is consistent with that noted by the Examiner. Although a priority acknowledgment was made shortly after the mailing of the notice of allowance, the certified copy of the priority document is not found in the parent application file, and no documents submitted between the Notice of Allowance and the mailing of the priority acknowledgement appear to rectify the lack of a certified copy of the priority document. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that conditions for foreign priority under 35 USC 119 are not met.
Applicant is reminded that in order for a patent issuing on the instant application to obtain priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b), based on priority papers filed in a parent or related Application Nos. 15/027,592, 16/173,906, 17/068,575 (to which the present application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or is a reissue application of a patent issued on the related application), a claim for such foreign priority must be timely made in this application. To satisfy the requirement of 37 CFR 1.55 for a certified copy of the foreign application, applicant may simply identify the parent nonprovisional application or patent for which reissue is sought containing the certified copy. The Examiner notes that upon inspection, the certified copy was not found to be contained in any of the above listed applications.
Specification
The amendment to the [0037] of the specification to add Ref #116 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites the limitation of “an outer right bar and an outer left bar” and then “a sum of the angles of the outer right bar and an outer left bar being greater than 7°” (emphasis added). Since it is understood that this latter recitation refers to previous outer right bar and outer left bar, this limitation should read, “a sum of the angles of the outer right bar and the outer left bar being greater than 7°” (emphasis added).
Claim 17 has been amended such that “the connecting lug” (line 6) is recited before “a connecting lug” (line 9), thereby creating confusion as to which structure is recited in line 6. Accordingly, the claim language should be fixed such that “a connecting lug” is recited before “the connecting lug”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 8 and 17 recites the limitation “a sum of the angles of the outer right bar and the outer left bar being greater than 7°”. The limitation “a sum of the angles” is understood in light of the instant specification [0039-0041], as referring the sum of an angle formed between the outer right bar and a vertical axis and an angle formed between the outer left bar and a vertical axis. Since the instant application desires the vertical bars to not run exactly vertically, but rather at different angles to each other in the shape of a fan, whereby they radiate outwardly from the upper frame element, it is interpreted that the angles to one side of the vertical axis are negative angles, while angles to the other side of the vertical axis are positive angles, as depicted in the schematic, below. In other words, when the angles being considered are formed on either side of the vertical axis, one angle is interpreted as being a positive angle while the other angle is interpreted as being a negative angle.
PNG
media_image1.png
519
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schematic showing positive angles and negative angles.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites, “a line positioned through the center of gravity of the grid and parallel to an axis of the nearest substantially vertical bar relative to the center of gravity of the grid, the line being offset from the axis by a separation and the line passes the connecting lug by the separation” (emphasis added). Although the instant specification indicates that there is a separation between a line positioned through the center of gravity (i.e. “G” in Fig. 5) and an axis of the nearest substantially vertical bar (i.e. “M" in Fig. 5) [0012-0013, 0043-0044], and that the line passes the connecting lug by a distance (i.e. “D” in Fig. 5) [0043], the instant specification does not support that the separation is equal to the first distance such that “the line passes the connecting lug by the separation” as required by Claim 17. The difference between these two distances is highlighted in the annotation of instant Fig. 5, below. Therefore, Claim 17 and dependent Claims 20-24 are rejected as introducing new matter.
PNG
media_image2.png
565
895
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of instant Fig. 5.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation, “a line positioned through the center of gravity of the grid and parallel to an axis of the nearest substantially vertical bar relative to the center of gravity of the grid, the line being offset from the axis by a separation and the line passes the connecting lug by the separation” (emphasis added). Here, the phrase “the lines passes the connecting lug by the separation” is unclear. This limitation appears to require a distance (i.e. a separation) between “a line” and “an axis” of the nearest substantially vertical bar, and appears to indicate that this distance is the same as the distance by which the line passes the connecting lug. Although such an interpretation is supported by Applicant’s arguments (filed 12/23/2025; see Pgs. 9-10), such an interpretation does not appear to be supported by the instant application (see 112(a) rejection, above). As such, Claim 17 and dependent Claims 20-24 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that the line, which is defined by the separation, passes (e.g. passes through; passes nearby) the connecting lug, as supported by the instant specification (Fig. 5; [0043]). Accordingly, any line which is positioned through a center of gravity of the grid, is parallel to an axis of the nearest substantially vertical bar, is offset from the axis by a separation, and passes the connecting lug will be interpreted as reading on the recited line.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 8-9, 12-17 and 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qureshi et al. (US-4221852-A; cited in IDS filed 03/20/2023).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Qureshi discloses a storage battery grid (Abstract; Claim 1). Although Qureshi does not specifically teach a storage battery (i.e. an electrochemical accumulator) comprising the grid, Qureshi does disclose that it well known that lead acid batteries comprise grids surrounded by active material (Col. 1: lines 10-21; Col. 2: lines 11-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a lead acid battery (i.e. an electrochemical accumulator) comprising the storage battery grid with a reasonable expectation that providing a lead acid battery (electrochemical accumulator) comprising the storage battery grid would result in a successful storage battery (electrochemical accumulator). Qureshi therefore renders obvious electrochemical accumulator (lead acid battery).
Although Qureshi does not explicitly teach a housing with a first and a second pack, Qureshi discloses that it is well-known that the assembly of a battery involves stacking together several grids, attaching a strap to their lugs and then positioning the stacks in a battery case with separating partitions therebetween (Col 2: lines 11-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the electrochemical accumulator (lead acid battery) with a battery case (i.e. a housing) and with several stacks of grids (i.e. a first and a second pack) positioned within the battery case with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful electrochemical accumulator (lead acid battery).
Although Qureshi does not specifically teach that the packs have “plates of alternating charge”, Qureshi does disclose that positive and negative electrodes can be produced as stacks of laminar plates depending on the active material pasted onto the grids (Col 1: lines 10-18), and that the stacks positioned in the battery case (housing) can have separating partitions therebetween (Col. 2: lines 14-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the first and second pack such that they have plates of alternating charge (i.e. positive and negative electrodes), positioned in the housing with a reasonable expectation that providing the packs to have plates of alternative charge would result in a successful first and second pack for use in an electrochemical accumulator.
Qureshi discloses a grid arrangement (Fig. 2; Col 3: lines 25-26) defining a first alternating plate. The grid arrangement has a grid (see Fig. 2; Col. 3: lines 39-44), a frame (20, Fig. 2; Col 3: lines 45-50) with a top frame element and an opposite lower frame element separated by side frame elements (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below). A connecting lug (21, Fig. 2) is positioned on the top frame element. Although not explicitly disclosed, a vertical reference axis can be drawn such that it is positioned in an intersection with the top frame element towards the lower frame element (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below). The vertical reference axis intersects with the connecting lug as required by Claim 9.
PNG
media_image3.png
998
1388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2
Qureshi discloses that the grid comprises:
substantially vertical bars (interpreted as bars which are more vertical than not absent a special definition of “substantially”) positioned between and coextensive with the side frame elements, with the substantially vertical bars including an outer right bar and an outer left bar (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, above).
Qureshi discloses that each of the outer right bar and the outer left bar are positioned at an angle in a direction of, with the angle defined by, the vertical reference axis (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
810
599
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
The angle between each outer bar and the reference axis can be determined (i.e. using PowerPoint to determine the rotation of each line from the reference axis). The angle between the outer left bar and the reference axis is 7°. This angle is interpreted as being a negative angle (see Claim Interpretation, above). The angle between the outer right bar and the reference line is 31°. This angle is interpreted as being a positive angle (see Claim Interpretation, above). Therefore, the sum of the angles of the outer right bar and the outer left bar is 24°, which is greater than 7°. While Examiner appreciates that the drawings may not be to scale, the cited figure demonstrates that the teachings of Qureshi, at a minimum, significantly overlaps the scope of this claim limitation.
Assuming, arguendo, that such teachings are not sufficiently specific so as to be anticipatory of the scope of the claim limitation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the drawings as a natural starting point to utilize for the design constraints of the grid, thus arriving at the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Although Qureshi does not explicitly teach the center of gravity of the grid arrangement, and therefore does not explicitly the limitation “a first distance defined by a separation between the connecting lug and a line intersecting a center of gravity of the grid arrangement, the line being parallel to a central axis of the nearest substantially vertical bar relative to the center of gravity of the grid arrangement”, the Examiner notes that the grid arrangement of Qureshi is understood to inherently possess a “center of gravity”, which is understood, in light of the instant specification, as the center of mass of the grid arrangement [instant specification: 0012]. Therefore, as well known in the art, it is reasonable to estimate the center of gravity (i.e. center of mass) by finding the geometric center of the grid arrangement. Such an approximation of the center of gravity of the grid plate is reasonable, as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0012].
Accordingly, as depicted below, Qureshi discloses a grid arrangement including the required first distance. While Examiner appreciates that the drawings may not be to scale, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the drawings as a natural starting point to utilize for the design constraints of the grid, thus arriving at the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image5.png
643
967
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2 showing center of gravity.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that the center of gravity differs from that depicted, above, Examiner further notes that the claim limitation is open to any separation between the connecting lug and the line intersecting the center of gravity. In other words, the claim does not require the intersecting line to not intersect the connecting lug. Therefore, in a situation wherein the center of gravity is positioned such that the required intersecting line intersects the connecting lug, the Examiner notes that the required “first distance defined by a separation between the connecting lug and a line intersecting a center of gravity of the grid arrangement” still exists, as depicted, below
PNG
media_image6.png
464
724
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2 depicting an alternative center of gravity and an alternative first distance.
Regarding Claims 12-13, Qureshi renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including a first distance. Although Qureshi does not explicitly teach “wherein the first distance is less than 15% of a width of the connecting lug” or “wherein the first distance is less than 10% of the width of the connecting lug” as required by Claims 12 and 13, Examiner notes that any distance defined by any separation between the connecting lug and the intersecting line can be selected as the first distance. Accordingly, the first distance can be selected such that it is less than 10% of a width of the connecting lug (see annotation of Fig. 2, below) which is within the range of “less than 15%” as recited in Claim 12, and corresponds to the range of “less than 10%” as recited in Claim 13.
PNG
media_image7.png
643
1036
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
Similarly, even if the intersecting line intersects the connecting lug, the first distance can still be selected such that it is less than 10% of a width of the connecting lug (see annotation of Fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image8.png
435
729
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
Regarding Claims 14-15, Qureshi renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Although Qureshi does not explicitly teach “wherein the first distance is less than 15% of a length of the top frame element away from a connecting lug vertical central axis” or “wherein the first distance is less than 10% of the length of the top frame element away from the connecting lug vertical central axis” as required by Claims 14 and 15, Examiner notes that any distance defined by any separation between the connecting lug and the intersecting line can be selected as the first distance. Accordingly, the first distance can be selected such that it is less than 10% of a length of the top frame element away from a connecting lug vertical central axis (see annotation of Fig. 2, below) which is within the range of “less than 15%” as required by Claim 14, and corresponds to the range of “less than 10” as recited in Claim 15.
PNG
media_image9.png
549
955
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
Similarly, even if the intersecting line intersects the connecting lug, the first distance can still be selected such that it is less than 10% of a length of the top frame element away from a connecting lug vertical central axis (see annotation of Fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image10.png
360
574
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
Regarding Claim 16, Qureshi renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Qureshi further discloses that a second angle of a vertical bar of the substantially vertical bars relative to an adjacent second vertical bar of the substantially vertical bars is less than 5° (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below). Specifically, an angle of 5° can be generated in PowerPoint and compared to two adjacent vertical bars. As seen (below), the two adjacent vertical bars have an angle of less than 5°.
PNG
media_image11.png
583
629
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
While Examiner appreciates that the drawings may not be to scale, the cited figure demonstrates that the teachings of Qureshi, at a minimum, significantly overlaps the scope of this claim limitation. Assuming, arguendo, that such teachings are not sufficiently specific so as to be anticipatory of the scope of the claim limitation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the drawings as a natural starting point to utilize for the design constraints of the grid, thus arriving at the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 17, Qureshi discloses a storage battery grid (Abstract; Claim 1). Although Qureshi does not specifically teach a storage battery (i.e. an electrochemical accumulator) comprising the grid, Qureshi does disclose that it well known that lead acid batteries comprise grids surrounded by active material (Col. 1: lines 10-21; Col. 2: lines 11-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a lead acid battery (i.e. an electrochemical accumulator) comprising the storage battery grid with a reasonable expectation that providing a lead acid battery (electrochemical accumulator) comprising the storage battery grid would result in a successful storage battery (electrochemical accumulator). Qureshi therefore renders obvious electrochemical accumulator (lead acid battery).
Qureshi therefore renders obvious an electrochemical accumulator, wherein the electrochemical accumulator comprises (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below):
a frame (20, Fig. 2; Col 3: lines 45-50) having a top frame element and an opposite lower frame;
a grid (combination of horizontals 23 and radials 24, 25, 26; Col. 3: lines 50-58) defined by the frame, the grid includes:
an outer right bar and an outer left bar.
PNG
media_image12.png
996
1195
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2
Qureshi discloses the outer right bar and the outer left bar as indicated above (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2), each of the outer right bar and the outer left bar being substantially vertical bars (interpreted as bars which are more vertical than not) and positioned at an angle in a direction of a connecting lug (see Claim Objection, above). Here, the limitation “at an angle in a direction of [a] connecting lug” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as referring to the angle between each outer bar and a reference line with is located near the connecting lug (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image13.png
836
637
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
The angle between each outer bar and the reference line can be calculated (i.e. using PowerPoint to determine the rotation of each line from the reference line). The angle between the outer left bar and the reference line is 7°. This angle is interpreted as being a negative angle (see Claim Interpretation, above). The angle between the outer right bar and the reference line is 31°. This angle is interpreted as being a positive angle (see Claim Interpretation, above). Therefore, the sum of the angles of the outer right bar and the outer left bar is 24°, which is greater than 7°. While Examiner appreciates that the drawings may not be to scale, the cited figure demonstrates that the teachings of Qureshi, at a minimum, significantly overlaps the scope of this claim limitation.
Assuming, arguendo, that such teachings are not sufficiently specific so as to be anticipatory of the scope of the claim limitation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the drawings as a natural starting point to utilize for the design constraints of the grid, thus arriving at the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Qureshi further discloses that the (see Claim Objection, above) connecting lug is positioned on the top frame. Although Qureshi does not explicitly teach that the connecting lug is “offset from a center of gravity of the grid”, the Examiner notes that the grid arrangement of Qureshi is understood to inherently possess a “center of gravity”, which is understood, in light of the instant specification, as the center of mass of the grid arrangement [instant specification: 0012]. Therefore, as well known in the art, it is reasonable to estimate the center of gravity (i.e. center of mass) by finding the geometric center of the grid. Such an approximation of the center of gravity of the grid plate is reasonable, as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0012]. Accordingly, the connecting lug (which is positioned on top of the frame) is offset (i.e. spatially separated) from the center of gravity (which is within the grid).
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that the connecting lug is not offset from a center of gravity of the grid, the Examiner notes that such a structure would still be obvious in light of the teachings of Qureshi. Specifically, Qureshi discloses that the connecting lug is substantially spaced from the grid corner in order to improve the power output (Col. 2: lines 3-7). Qureshi also discloses that thicknesses of the radial arms can vary from one another (Col. 4: lines 11-20), and that directly connecting a greater number of wires directly to the lug-bearing frame member can result in lower effective resistance in the grid (Col. 5: lines 36-41). Qureshi further notes that minimizing the grid weight is an important design factor (Col. 1: lines 25-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the distance of the connecting lug from the grid corner and the thicknesses and connectivity of the radial arms in order to maximize power output and lower the effective resistance while still seeking to minimize the weight of the grid, including arriving at a structure wherein the connecting lug is offset from a center of gravity, with a reasonable expectation that such a structure would result in a successful balance between improved battery characteristics (i.e. increased power / lower resistance) and energy density (i.e. minimized grid weight).
Although Qureshi does not explicitly teach “ a line positioned through the center of gravity of the grid and parallel to an axis of the nearest substantially vertical bar relative to the center of gravity of the grid”, as previously noted, the center of gravity is understood to reasonably be interpreted as the geometric center of the grid. Accordingly, as depicted below, Qureshi discloses a grid arrangement including the required line. The limitation “the line being offset from the axis by a separation” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as indicating that the “line” and the “axis of the nearest substantially vertical line” are spatially separated from one another by a certain distance (i.e. “by a separation”, see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below). The limitation “and the line passes the connecting lug by the separation” is interpreted as indicating that the line passes nearby the connecting lug (see 112(b) rejection, above).
PNG
media_image14.png
628
994
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2 showing center of gravity.
While Examiner appreciates that the drawings may not be to scale, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the drawings as a natural starting point to utilize for the design constraints of the grid, thus arriving at the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that the center of gravity differs from that depicted, above, the Examiner further notes that the limitation “the line passes the connecting lug by the separation” is interpreted as any line which “passes” the connecting lug (see 112(b) interpretation, above) . Here, the term “passes” is broadly and reasonably interpreted, in light of the instant specification, as indicating that the line either passes through the connecting lug, or passes nearby the connecting lug [instant specification: 0043]. In other words, the claim does not require the line to not intersect the connecting lug. Therefore, in a situation wherein the center of gravity is positioned such that the required line intersects the connecting lug, the Examiner notes that the required “line positioned through the center of gravity of the grid and parallel to an axis of the nearest substantially vertical bar relative to the center of gravity of the grid, the line being offset from the axis by a separation and the line passes the connecting lug by the separation” still exists, as depicted, below
PNG
media_image15.png
443
724
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2 depicting an alternative center of gravity and an alternative first distance.
Regarding Claims 20-21, Qureshi renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including a separation which is defined as a distance between a line positioned through the center of gravity of the grid and the axis of the nearest substantially vertical bar (see rejection of Claim 17, above). Qureshi further discloses that the line is positioned “proximate” (interpreted as close; very near) the connecting lug. Although Qureshi does not explicitly teach “with the separation being less than 15% of a connecting lug width” or “wherein the separation is less than 10% the connecting lug width” as required by Claims 20 and 21, the Examiner notes that the separation is at most, half the distance between two substantially vertical bars. As depicted in Qureshi Fig. 2, the connecting lug has a width which is approximately equal to the width of six substantially vertical bars and the space between them. Therefore, the separation is less than 10% of a connecting lug width, which is within the range of “less than 15%” as recited in Claim 20, and corresponds to the range of “less than 10%” as recited in Claim 21. While Examiner appreciates that the drawings may not be to scale, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the drawings as a natural starting point to utilize for the design constraints of the grid, thus arriving at the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 22-23, Qureshi renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including a separation which is defined as a distance between a line positioned through the center of gravity of the grid and the axis of the nearest substantially vertical bar (see rejection of Claim 17, above). Although Qureshi does not explicitly teach “wherein the separation is less than 15% of a length of the top frame element away from a connecting lug vertical central axis” or “wherein the separation is less than 10% of the length of the top frame element away from the connecting lug vertical central axis” as required by Claims 22 and 23, the Examiner notes that the separation is a distance between two lines. Therefore, the “separation” can be selected at any point between the two line, including at a point wherein the separation is less than 10% of the length of the top frame element away from the connecting lug vertical central axis (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below). A separation of less than 10% is within the range of “less than 15%” as recited in Claim 22, and corresponds to the range of “less than 10%” as recited in Claim 23.
PNG
media_image16.png
476
551
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
Regarding Claim 24, Qureshi renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Qureshi further discloses that a second angle of a vertical bar of the substantially vertical bars relative to an adjacent second vertical bar of the substantially vertical bars is less than 5° (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below). Specifically, an angle of 5° can be generated in PowerPoint and compared to two adjacent vertical bars. As seen (below), the two adjacent vertical bars have an angle of less than 5°.
PNG
media_image11.png
583
629
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
While Examiner appreciates that the drawings may not be to scale, the cited figure demonstrates that the teachings of Qureshi, at a minimum, significantly overlaps the scope of this claim limitation. Assuming, arguendo, that such teachings are not sufficiently specific so as to be anticipatory of the scope of the claim limitation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the drawings as a natural starting point to utilize for the design constraints of the grid, thus arriving at the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 25-26, Qureshi renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Qureshi further discloses substantially horizontal bars (interpreted as bars which are more horizontal than not; see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below) with at least a portion of the substantially horizontal bars being positioned at a third angle relative to the vertical reference axis as required by Claim 25, and wherein the portion of the substantially horizontal bars positioned at the third angle is substantially perpendicular (interpreted as more perpendicular than not; i.e. closer to 90° than to 0° or 180°) to an adjacent substantially vertical bar as required by Claim 26 (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image17.png
857
1024
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has argued that Qureshi does not teach the newly added limitations of Claims 8 and 17 (Remarks, Pgs. 8-10). Ine regards to Claim 8, Applicant has argued (Pgs. 8-9) that Qureshi does not teach the required first distance. Applicant submits that any hypothetical center of gravity would result in a line which necessarily intersects with the connecting lug.
In response, the Examiner notes that Qureshi renders obvious a line which meets the newly added claim limitation (see rejection of Claim 8, above). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the claim language does not require the line to not intersect the connecting lug. Instead, the claim is open to a first distance defined by any separation between the connecting lug and the required line intersecting the center of gravity. As laid out in the rejection of Claim 8 (see above), even if the line intersects the connecting lug, a separation exists between a portion of the line and the connecting lug, and such a separation reads on the required “first distance”.
In regards to Claim 17, Applicant has argued (Pgs. 9-10) that Qureshi does not teach or suggest the newly added limitation. Specifically, Applicant has argued that any line positioned through a reasonable center of gravity of Qureshi would not be offset by a separation such that the line passes the connecting lug by said separation. In response, Examiner notes that this limitation appears to indicate that the distance (i.e. separation) between a line passing through the center of gravity and the axis of the nearest substantially vertical bar is equivalent to the distance between the line and the connecting lug. However, such a limitation is not supported by the instant specification (see 112(a) rejection, above). Qureshi renders obvious a line which is defined by the separation and which passes the connecting lug (see 112(b) rejection, and rejection of Claim 17, above). Therefore, Qureshi is interpreted as reading on the newly added limitation.
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/2/2026