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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Although the Examiner acknowledges that a priority acknowledgement with a date of July 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 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 acknowledgement 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 of 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 meet.
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.
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 17, 20-24, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites “a line positioned through the center of gravity of the grid and parallel to an axis of a nearest substantially vertical bar relative to the center of gravity of the grid, the line being offset from the axis by a separation having a first distance and the line passes the connecting lug by the separation having a second distance, the connecting lug and the line being separate by the second distance”. Here, the term “separation” is understood to refer to “a point, line, or means of division” as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Accordingly, a separation between two structure is understood to refer to a line of division between the two structures. However, Applicant is using “separation” to refer to multiple lines between different sets of structures. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. The term “separation” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The meaning of the term “separation” is further complicated by dependent Claims 20-23 which each appear to refer to “the separation” as if it has a single line of division with a single distance. As such, Claim 17 and its dependents are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpretated that the line and the axis are separated by a first separation having a first distance, and the line and the connecting lug are separated by a second separation having a second distance, as supported by the instant specification (Fig. 5; [0012-0013, 0043-0044]).
Claims 20-23 each recite “the separation” . However, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 17, the separation is recited as having multiple distances, and it is unclear which distance is referred to in each of Claims 20-23. As such, the claims are indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that these claims refer to the second separation having a second distance, since they reference the distance to the connecting lug, and since similar limitations are found in Claims 12-15.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 8 recites “a sum of the angles of the outer right bar and the outer left bar being greater than 7°”. This limitation can be interpreted, in view of the instant specification [0039-0041] and Applicant’s arguments (filed 05/05/2026; see Pg. 6) in either of at least the two following ways.
Under a first interpretation, this limitation is interpreted as referring to 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, wherein 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 (see schematic below). Such an interpretation appears supported by the instant application [0039-0041].
Under a second interpretation, this limitation is interpreted as referring to the sum of the magnitude of the angle formed between the outer right bar and a vertical axis and the magnitude of the angle formed between the outer left bar and a vertical axis (see schematic below). In other words, only the absolute value of each angle is considered. Such an interpretation is supported by Applicant Remarks (filed 05/05/2026; Pg. 6) and appears supported by the instant application [0039-0041].
PNG
media_image1.png
338
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Left: First interpretation; Right: Second interpretation
Both interpretations are considered valid, and either interpretation is applied in the rejections of record, below. Claim 17 contains similar language, and will be interpreted in a similar manner.
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 20-29 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) in view of Jang (US-20060121353-A1).
Regarding Claims 8, 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).
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 such a configuration would result in a successful storage battery (electrochemical accumulator).
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).
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.
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 can have separating partitions therebetween (Col. 2: lines 14-15).
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. The limitation “with a vertical axis positioned in an intersection with the top frame element towards the lower frame element” does not further limit the structure of the grid arrangement. Therefore, any imaginary vertical line which intersects the top frame element and extends towards the lower frame element can be selected.
PNG
media_image2.png
936
1387
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2
Qureshi discloses that the grid comprises (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, above):
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.
Qureshi discloses that the outer left bar and the outer right bar are not perpendicular to top frame element (see Fig. 2). Therefore each of the bars necessarily and inherently is “positioned at an angle in a direction of and defined by the vertical reference axis”.
Although Qureshi does not explicitly disclose “a sum of the angles of the outer right bar and the outer left bar being greater than 7°”, the Examiner notes that any vertical reference axis can be selected, including one which results in a sum of the angles being greater than 7° regardless of whether the first or second interpretation of the term “sum of the angles” is applied to claim (see Claim Interpretation, above). For instance, if the vertical reference axis is selected to be towards the edge of the grid arrangement, the angle between the outer left bar and the reference axis is necessarily very acute, while the angle between the outer right bar and the reference axis is much larger (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below). The resulting “sum of the angles” is necessarily greater than 7°, regardless of which interpretation is applied. Additionally, the Examiner notes that if the second interpretation is applied, the reference line can be positioned anywhere, and the angles will necessarily sum to greater than 7° since the outer bars radiate towards the lug (Col. 3: lines 14-16, 46-48, 62-66).
PNG
media_image3.png
1147
1286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2 showing possible reference axis.
Qureshi discloses that the lug is positioned between the midpoint of the top frame and the corner of the top frame and a side frame (Col. 2: lines 58-61; Col. 3: lines 46-48). By offsetting the lug from the corner of the frame the performance is improved and the overall design and construction of batteries using the grid is improved (Col. 2: lines 3-28). Additionally, the grid arrangement of Qureshi is understood to necessarily and inherently have a center of gravity. Qureshi does not explicitly teach that there is a separation between the connecting lug and a line intersecting a center of gravity.
Jang teaches a positive plate for a lead-acid battery including an upper frame with a lug protruding therefrom [0018-0020]. Jang teaches that the lug may be positioned at the center of the upper frame, near the center of the upper frame, or at the edge of the upper frame [0020]. It is most favorable to position the lug at the center in view of the collection of electrons, but the lug is typically positioned near the center in view of battery assembly [0020].
Therefore, although Qureshi does not explicitly teach “a first distance defined by a separation between the connecting lug and a line intersecting a center of gravity of the grid arrangement, the connecting lug and the line being separate by the separation, the line being parallel to a central axis of a nearest substantially vertical bar relative to the center of gravity of the grid arrangement”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have positioned the connecting lug as close as possible to the center of the top frame to improve the collection of electrons while taking into consideration constraints of battery assembly, including selecting a location which results in the connecting lug being offset by “a first distance” from a line parallel to a central axis of a nearest substantially vertical bar relative to the center of gravity, with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful grid arrangement with improved performance and electron collection while taking into consideration the constraints of battery assembly. A possible center of gravity and possible location of the lug is depicted, below.
PNG
media_image4.png
932
1451
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2 showing possible location of lug for a potential center of gravity.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Qureshi renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Qureshi does not explicitly teach that the vertical reference axis intersects with the connecting lug, the Examiner notes that modified Qureshi provides motivation to alter the position of the connecting lug to increase electron conduction while taking into consideration battery assembly constraints (see rejection of Claim 8, above; [Jang: 0020]). The Examiner further notes that the location of the reference axis only influences the “sum of the angles of the outer right bar and the outer left bar” as recited in Claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have positioned the lug such that the reference axis intersects the lug and such that a sum of the angles of the outer right bar and the outer left bar is greater than 7°, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful grid arrangement for use in an electrochemical accumulator. The Examiner notes that under the second interpretation of the “sum of the angles” (see Claim Interpretation, above), the resulting angle is greater than 7°, regardless of where the reference axis is positioned.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that a particular definition should be applied to the limitation regarding “a sum of the angles”, and that modified Qureshi is not able to position the reference axis such that it intersects the lug while inherently maintaining the limitations of Claim 8, the Examiner notes that the limitations of Claim 9 would still have been obvious in view of the disclosure of Qureshi. Specifically, Qureshi discloses that the substantially vertical bars are disposed between 10° to 45° to the direction of the lug bearing frame edge (Col. 3: lines 9-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the vertical bars to be disposed at an angle between 10° to 45° to the top frame, including selecting angles which result in the sum of the angles of the outer right bar and the outer left bar which is greater than 7°, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful grid arrangement.
Regarding Claims 12-13, modified 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, the Examiner notes that any distance between the connecting lug and the line intersecting the center of gravity 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_image5.png
932
1451
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2 showing possible first distances.
Regarding Claims 14-15, modified 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, the Examiner notes that any distance between the connecting lug and the line intersecting the center of gravity 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 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.
Regarding Claim 16, modified 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_image6.png
583
629
media_image6.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).
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 such a configuration would result in a successful storage battery (electrochemical accumulator).
Qureshi discloses that 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, with each of the outer right bar and the outer left bar being substantially vertical bars and positioned at an angle in a direction of a connecting lug.
Here, the limitation “at an angle in a direction of a connecting lug” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as referring to an angle between each outer bar and a reference line or reference lines which are located at or near the connecting lug.
PNG
media_image7.png
887
1253
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2
Qureshi discloses that the lug is positioned between the midpoint of the top frame and the corner of the top frame and a side frame (Col. 2: lines 58-61; Col. 3: lines 46-48). By offsetting the lug from the corner of the frame the performance is improved and the overall design and construction of batteries using the grid is improved (Col. 2: lines 3-28). Additionally, the grid arrangement of Qureshi is understood to inherently have a center of gravity. Qureshi does not explicitly teach the claimed sum of angles, or the claimed line through the center of gravity passing the connecting lug by a second distance.
Jang teaches a positive plate for a lead-acid battery including an upper frame with a lug protruding therefrom [0018-0020]. Jang teaches that the lug may be positioned at the center of the upper frame, near the center of the upper frame, or at the edge of the upper frame [0020]. It is most favorable to position the lug at the center in view of the collection of electrons, but the lug is typically positioned near the center in view of battery assembly [0020].
Therefore, although Qureshi does not explicitly teach
“a sum of the angles of the outer right bar and the outer left bar being greater than 7°,
the connecting lug positioned on the top frame element and offset from a center of gravity of the grid; and
a line positioned through the center of gravity of the grid and parallel to an axis of a nearest substantially vertical bar relative to the center of gravity of the grid, the line being offset from the axis by a separation having a first distance and the line passes the connecting lug by the separation having a second distance, the connecting lug and the line being separate by the second distance”
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have positioned the connecting lug as close as possible to the center of the top frame to improve the collection of electrons while taking into consideration constraints of battery assembly, including selecting a location which results in the claimed configuration, with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful grid arrangement with improved performance and electron collection while taking into consideration the constraints of battery assembly. To promote understanding, a possible center of gravity and possible location of the lug which satisfies the claimed conditions is depicted, below.
PNG
media_image8.png
794
1529
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
For clarity of record, the Examiner notes that the limitation “a sum of the angles… being greater than 7°” can be interpreted using either the first interpretation or the second interpretation as laid out in the Claim Interpretation, above. Under the second interpretation, the reference line(s) can be positioned anywhere, and the angles will necessarily sum to greater than 7° since the outer bars radiate towards the lug, which is offset from the center (Col. 3: lines 14-16, 46-48, 62-66). Additionally, the Examiner notes that Claim 17 merely requires the outer right bar and outer left bar to be positioned “at an angle in a direction of” the connecting lug. Here, any angle between the outer left bar in a direction of the connecting lug and any angle between the outer right bar in a direction of the connecting lug read on the recited angles. Accordingly, the directions can be selected such that the sum is greater than 7°, regardless of which interpretation is applied, as depicted in the annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below.
PNG
media_image9.png
864
1366
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that a particular interpretation should be applied to the limitation “a sum of the angles… being greater than 7°”, and that modified Qureshi does not inherently possess the structure which satisfies such a limitation, the Examiner notes that this limitation would still have been obvious in view of the disclosure of Qureshi. Specifically, Qureshi discloses that the substantially vertical bars are disposed between 10° to 45° to the direction of the lug bearing frame edge (Col. 3: lines 9-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the vertical bars to be disposed at an angle between 10° to 45° to the top frame, including selecting angles which result in the sum of the angles of the outer right bar and the outer left bar which is greater than 7°, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful grid arrangement (MPEP 2144.05, I).
For clarity of record, the Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “the connecting lug positioned on the top frame element and offset from a center of gravity of the grid” requires the connecting lug to not be positioned at the same location as the center of gravity. Since the lug is positioned on the top frame, it is understood to necessarily and inherently be “offset from a center of gravity of the grid”.
Regarding Claims 20-21, modified Qureshi renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including a separation having a second distance between the line and the connecting lug (see 112(b) and 103 rejections of Claim 17, above). Qureshi renders obvious 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 any distance between the connecting lug and the line intersecting the center of gravity can be selected as the second distance. Accordingly, the second distance can be selected such that it is less than 10% of a connecting lug width (see annotation of Fig. 2, below) 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.
PNG
media_image10.png
932
1451
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2 showing possible first distances.
Regarding Claims 22-23, modified Qureshi renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, 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 any distance between the connecting lug and the line intersecting the center of gravity can be selected as the second distance (see interpretation provided in 112b rejection of Claims 22-23, above). Accordingly, the second 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 which is within the range of “less than 15%” as required by Claim 22, and corresponds to the range of “less than 10” as recited in Claim 23.
Regarding Claim 24, modified 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_image6.png
583
629
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
While the 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, modified 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) 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, 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_image11.png
857
1024
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2
Regarding Claims 27-29, modified Qureshi renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Qureshi does not explicitly teach the magnitude of the first distance in relation to the magnitude of the second distance, and therefore does not explicitly teach the requirements of Claims 27-29, the Examiner notes that any second distance between the line and the connecting lug reads on the claimed second distance (see annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2, below). Accordingly, the second distance can be selected in Claim 27 such that “the first distance is greater than the second distance”, the second distance can be selected in Claim 28 such that “the first distance is less than the second distance”, and the second distance can be selected in Claim 29 such that “the first distance is equal to the second distance”.
PNG
media_image12.png
766
1648
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Qureshi Fig. 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the certified copy of the foreign priority document (Remarks, Pg. 5), although the Examiner acknowledges that a priority acknowledgement with a date of July 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. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that conditions for foreign priority under 35 USC 119 are not meet. See “Priority” section, above.
Regarding the Claim Interpretation, Applicant has argued that “a sum of the angles” does not reference a positive and negative angle exclusively, and that limiting the angles as such is not supported by the Applicant’s specification (Remarks, Pg. 6). The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, and agrees that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “a sum of the angles” includes a sum of the magnitude of the angles. However, since no special definition is provided in the instant specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation also includes the previous interpretation, wherein one angle is a positive angle and the other angle is a negative angle. Accordingly, as laid out in the Claim Interpretation (see above), either interpretation is considered valid and is be applied to the claims.
Applicant has argued that in the grid arrangement of Qureshi, the claimed parallel line would necessarily intersect with the connecting lug due to the arrangement of the wires, specifically the concentration of wires under the lug as compared to the remainder of the grid (Remarks, Pg. 9). Applicant has argued that Qureshi does not provide motivation to move the radial arms such that they are not concentrated under the lug (Remarks, Pg. 9).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that Qureshi teaches that the lug is provided at a location intermediate the midpoint of the top frame and the corner (Col. 2: lines 58-61), and Jang provides motivation to move the lug closer to the midpoint of the grid arrangement [Jang: 0020]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have moved the connecting lug, including to a position such that a parallel line to the central axis of the nearest substantially vertical bar relative to the center of gravity would not intersect with the connecting lug. Currently, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the grid configuration of Qureshi is incapable of meeting the claim limitations, especially in view of modified Qureshi’s teaching that the connecting lug can be moved. For clarity of record, the Examiner notes that the claims do not currently require the grid arrangement to not have a concentration of wires under the lug.
Conclusion
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 8/16/2026
Prosecution Insights