DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 6/19/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 6/19/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-16 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 17-20 are newly added.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-20 are objected to because “the upper wall” should read “the sloped upper wall”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schüssler et al. (US 2022/0271390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1) in view of Shin et al. (US 20230299415 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schüssler et al. teaches a motor vehicle traction battery module (14, Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of fluidically tight battery cells (16, Fig. 1) arranged in a row (see [0038]), each of the battery cells (16, Fig. 2) having a degassing opening (24, Fig. 2) and the cell degassing openings (24, Fig. 2) of the battery cells (16, Fig. 2) open into a single degassing passage (12, Fig. 2) in a fluidically parallel manner, wherein:
the single degassing passage (12, Fig. 1) leads to a single module degassing opening (an outlet opening of collecting channel 22, see [0039]) so that a single degassing passage flow direction (direction of 40 moves, see Fig. 5) is defined, and
each of the cell degassing openings (24, Fig. 5) that is downstream of at least one other one of the cell degassing openings (24, Fig. 2) is associated with a degassing guide flap (28, Fig. 5) that is biased into a closed position (28 is closed at t1, Fig. 5), wherein each degassing guide flap (28, Fig. 5) is hinged via a flap joint (28a, Fig. 5) at an upstream flap edge (edge, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 5) with respect to the single degassing passage flow direction (direction of 40 moves, see Fig. 5), the degassing guide flap (28, Fig. 5) closes (t1, Fig. 5) the cell degassing opening (24, Fig. 5) in a closed position (28 closes 24 when t1, see Fig. 5) and releases (t2 and t3, Fig. 5) the cell degassing opening (24, Fig. 5) in an open position (see movement of 40 when t2 and t3, Fig. 5) during cell degassing (t2-t3, Fig. 5),
wherein the single degassing passage (12, Fig. 5) has an upper wall (44, Fig. 5) and is sized such that each guide flap (28, Fig. 5) contacts (28b contacts 44, Fig. 5; see [0050]) the upper wall (44, Fig. 5) of the single degassing passage (12, Fig. 5) in the open position (28 opens when t3, Fig. 5),
wherein the guide flaps (28, Fig. 5) are formed in a lower wall (34/36, Fig. 5) of the single degassing passage (12, Fig. 5) that faces the upper wall (44, Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
1875
2792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schüssler et al. does not teach wherein the single degassing passage has a sloped upper wall and a passage cross-section (A1, A6) that increases from upstream to downstream,
wherein the lower wall is directly connected to the sloped upper wall by a sloped side wall, wherein the sloped side wall is sloped relative to the lower wall and the sloped upper wall.
Wang et al. teaches wherein the single degassing passage (133, Fig. 9) has a sloped upper wall (171, Fig. 9) and a passage cross-section (A1/A6, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) that increases from upstream (A1, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) to downstream (A6, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10),
wherein the lower wall (132, Fig. 7) is directly connected to the sloped upper wall (171, Fig. 9) by a side wall (131, Fig. 9) (132 connected to 131, [0089]; 171 connected to 131, [0102]).
PNG
media_image2.png
1027
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the connection between the channel wall and the second channel wall of the degassing channel taught by Schüssler et al. by adding the top plate taught by Wang et al. to form a passage so that the heat and the gas that are released by the battery cell can be discharged to an outside of the box through the passage (see Wang et al. [0105]); to modify the shape of the degassing channel taught by Schüssler et al. to be the shape of the first passage (having a sloped upper wall which is the first fastening plate) and passage cross-section that increases from upstream to downstream as taught by Wang et al. because Wang et al. teaches that it is known in the art to form a gas discharge with such sloped upper wall and cross-sectional configuration, hence, the modification is a simple modification that would yield the same predictable result of discharging gas from the battery to reduce the internal pressure and improve safety performance of the battery (see Wang et al. [0032]). Moreover, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” (MPEP 2144.04 IV-A).
However, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. does not teach by a sloped side wall, wherein the sloped side wall is sloped relative to the lower wall and the sloped upper wall.
Shin et al. teaches a sloped side wall (sloped side wall, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16), wherein the sloped side wall (sloped side wall, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) is sloped (lower wall and sloped side wall forms an acute internal angle, A; upper wall and sloped side wall forms an obtuse internal angle, B, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) relative to the lower wall (lower wall, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) and the upper wall (upper wall, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16).
PNG
media_image3.png
687
1245
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the internal angles formed between the first channel wall and the top plate, between the second channel wall and the top plate as taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. to be the acute internal angle A and obtuse internal angle B, respectively taught by Shin et al. (see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) to prevent the gas venting channel from moving to the left or right from its position when external impacts or vibration are applied because the gas venting channel has such a shape of an approximately flat trapezoidal box with two obliquely truncated edge areas (see Shin et al. [0096]-[0100]).
Regarding Claim 2, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. teaches further comprising opening stops (28b, Schüssler Fig. 5) in the single degassing passage (12, Schüssler Fig. 5), the opening stops (28b, Schüssler Fig. 5) being disposed to limit an opening movement of the degassing guide flap (when 28b contacts 44 when t3, Schüssler Fig. 5; see Schüssler [0050]) to a maximum opening angle (maximum opening angle, see Schüssler Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 5) of less than 90° in a degassing event of a battery cell (t3, Schüssler Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. teaches wherein each of the degassing guide flaps (28, Schüssler Fig. 5) is configured to fluidically close an upstream portion of the single degassing passage (upstream portion of 12, see Schüssler Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 5) when the degassing guide flap (28, Schüssler Fig. 5) is stopped (when 28b contacts 44 when t3, Schüssler Fig. 5; see Schüssler [0050]) at the open position (t3, Schüssler Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. teaches wherein each of the degassing guide flaps (28, Schüssler Fig. 5) is integral with a passage wall (36, Schüssler Fig. 5) of the degassing passage (12, Schüssler Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. teaches wherein each of the cell degassing openings (24, Schüssler Fig. 2) is associated with a fluidically tight rupture disc (26, Schüssler Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. teaches wherein the passage cross-section (A1, A6, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) of the single degassing passage (12, Schüssler Fig. 5 with shape modified with 133, Wang Fig. 9, see rejection above) increases from upstream to downstream by at least 30% (appears 30% increase from A6 to A1; see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 17, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. teaches wherein an acute internal angle (acute internal angle A, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) is formed between the lower wall and the sloped side wall.
Regarding Claim 18, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. teaches wherein an obtuse internal angle (obtuse internal angle B, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) is formed between the upper wall and the sloped side wall.
Regarding Claim 19, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. teaches wherein an acute internal angle (acute internal angle A, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) is formed between the lower wall and the sloped side wall, and, wherein an obtuse internal angle (obtuse internal angle B, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) is formed between the upper wall and the sloped side wall.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schüssler et al. (US 2022/0271390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1) in view of Shin et al. (US 20230299415 A1) in view of Haug (DE102013201365A1, provided on IDS filed 3/28/2023, citation see machine translation provided 11/25/2025).
Regarding Claim 4, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. is silent wherein the flap joint is a bendable material bridge.
Haug teaches wherein the flap joint (5, Fig. 3) is a bendable material bridge (5 is bendable see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first element end taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. to be the first connecting means taught by Haug so that the flap can move when the chamber overpressures during cell degassing (see Haug [0033]).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schüssler et al. (US 2022/0271390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1) in view of Shin et al. (US 20230299415 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20240380069 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. does not teach wherein the cell degassing opening that is most upstream in the single degassing passage has no guide flaps.
Kim et al. teaches wherein the cell degassing opening (P, Figs 4 and 5) that is most upstream (P of the first 10 from the right side, see Figs 4 and 5) in the single degassing passage (S, see Fig. 5) has no guide flaps (30, Figs 4 and 5) (P of the first 10 from the right side does not have 30, see Figs 4 and 5; note: there are four P with only three 30, each P of the second, third and fourth 10 from the right side has one 30 except the first 10 from the right side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shielding element of the degassing opening that is most upstream in the degassing channel taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. by removing it as the module opening that is most upstream has no oxygen introduction preventing member taught by Kim et al. because such configuration is known in the art (see Kim et al. Figs 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. does not teach wherein the cell degassing opening that is most upstream in the single degassing passage has no guide flaps both prior to degassing and after degassing, and wherein the cell degassing opening that has no guide flaps is positioned beneath the sloped side wall.
Kim et al. teaches wherein the cell degassing opening (P, Figs 4 and 5) that is most upstream (P of the first 10 from the right side, see Figs 4 and 5) in the single degassing passage (S, see Fig. 5) has no guide flaps (P of the first 10 from the right side does not have 30, see Figs 4 and 5) both prior to degassing (see Fig. 4) and after degassing (see Fig. 5), and wherein the cell degassing opening (P of the first 10 from the right side, see Figs 4 and 5) that has no guide flaps (P of the first 10 from the right side does not have 30, see Figs 4 and 5) is positioned beneath the sloped side wall (20, Figs 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shielding element of the degassing opening that is most upstream in the degassing channel taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Shin et al. by removing it as the module opening that is most upstream has no oxygen introduction preventing member taught by Kim et al. because such configuration is known in the art (see Kim et al. Figs 4 and 5).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schüssler et al. (US 2022/0271390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20240380069 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Schüssler et al. teaches a motor vehicle traction battery module (14, Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of fluidically tight battery cells (16, Fig. 1) arranged in a row (see [0038]), each of the battery cells (16, Fig. 2) having a degassing opening (24, Fig. 2) and the cell degassing openings (24, Fig. 2) of the battery cells (16, Fig. 2) open into a single degassing passage (12, Fig. 2) in a fluidically parallel manner, wherein:
the single degassing passage (12, Fig. 1) leads to a single module degassing opening (an outlet opening of collecting channel 22, see [0039]) so that a single degassing passage flow direction (direction of 40 moves, see Fig. 5) is defined, and
each of the cell degassing openings (24, Fig. 5) that is downstream of at least one other one of the cell degassing openings (24, Fig. 2) is associated with a degassing guide flap (28, Fig. 5) that is biased into a closed position (28 is closed at t1, Fig. 5), wherein each degassing guide flap (28, Fig. 5) is hinged via a flap joint (28a, Fig. 5) at an upstream flap edge (edge, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 5) with respect to the single degassing passage flow direction (direction of 40 moves, see Fig. 5), the degassing guide flap (28, Fig. 5) closes (t1, Fig. 5) the cell degassing opening (24, Fig. 5) in a closed position (28 closes 24 when t1, see Fig. 5) and releases (t2 and t3, Fig. 5) the cell degassing opening (24, Fig. 5) in an open position (see movement of 40 when t2 and t3, Fig. 5) during cell degassing (t2-t3, Fig. 5),
wherein the single degassing passage (12, Fig. 5) has an upper wall (44, Fig. 5) and is sized such that each guide flap (28, Fig. 5) contacts (28b contacts 44, Fig. 5; see [0050]) the upper wall (44, Fig. 5) of the single degassing passage (12, Fig. 5) in the open position (28 opens when t3, Fig. 5).
Schüssler et al. does not teach wherein the single degassing passage has a sloped upper wall and a passage cross-section that increases from upstream to downstream,
wherein the cell degassing opening that is most upstream in the single degassing passage and is arranged at a smallest cross-section of the passage cross-section has no guide flaps both prior to degassing and after degassing.
Wang et al. teaches wherein the single degassing passage (133, Fig. 9) has a sloped upper wall (171, Fig. 9) and a passage cross-section (A1/A6, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) that increases from upstream (A1, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) to downstream (A6, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10),
wherein the cell degassing opening (132a, Fig. 9) that is most upstream (A1, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10; note: 132a in Fig. 9 is at A1) in the single degassing passage (133, Fig. 9) and is arranged at a smallest cross-section of the passage cross-section (A1 is smallest cross section, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the connection between the channel wall and the second channel wall of the degassing channel taught by Schüssler et al. by adding the top plate taught by Wang et al. to form a passage so that the heat and the gas that are released by the battery cell can be discharged to an outside of the box through the passage (see Wang et al. [0105]); to modify the shape of the degassing channel taught by Schüssler et al. to be the shape of the first passage (having a sloped upper wall which is the first fastening plate) and passage cross-section that increases from upstream to downstream and the cell degassing opening that is most upstream is also at the smallest cross section as taught by Wang et al. because Wang et al. teaches that it is known in the art to form a gas discharge with such sloped upper wall and cross-sectional configuration, hence, the modification is a simple modification that would yield the same predictable result of discharging gas from the battery to reduce the internal pressure and improve safety performance of the battery (see Wang et al. [0032]). Moreover, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” (MPEP 2144.04 IV-A).
However, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. does not teach wherein the cell degassing opening that is most upstream in the single degassing passage and is arranged at a smallest cross-section of the passage cross-section has no guide flaps both prior to degassing and after degassing.
Kim et al. teaches wherein the cell degassing opening (P, Figs 4 and 5) that is most upstream (P of the first 10 from the right side, see Figs 4 and 5) in the single degassing passage (S, see Fig. 5) and is arranged at a smallest cross-section of the passage cross-section (cross section appears to be the same across S, see Fig. 5, therefore most upstream is also considered as smallest cross section) has no guide flaps (30, Figs 4 and 5) (P of the first 10 from the right side does not have 30, see Figs 4 and 5; note: there are four P with only three 30, each P of the second, third and fourth 10 from the right side has one 30 except the first 10 from the right side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shielding element of the degassing opening that is most upstream in the degassing channel taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. by removing it as the module opening that is most upstream has no oxygen introduction preventing member taught by Kim et al. because such configuration is known in the art (see Kim et al. Figs 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. teaches wherein the guide flaps (28, Schüssler Fig. 5) are formed in a lower wall (34/36, Schüssler Fig. 5) of the single degassing passage (12, Schüssler Fig. 5) that faces the sloped upper wall (44, Schüssler Fig. 5 when shape modified with Wang).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schüssler et al. (US 2022/0271390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20240380069 A1) in view of Shin et al. (US 20230299415 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. teaches wherein the lower wall (34/36, Schüssler Fig. 5) is directly connected to the sloped upper wall (44, Schüssler Fig. 5 when shape modified with Wang) by a side wall (131, Wang Fig. 9).
However, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. does not teach by a sloped side wall, wherein the sloped side wall is sloped relative to the lower wall and the sloped upper wall.
Shin et al. teaches by a sloped side wall (sloped side wall, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16), wherein the sloped side wall (sloped side wall, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) is sloped (lower wall and sloped side wall forms an acute internal angle, A; upper wall and sloped side wall forms an obtuse internal angle, B, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) relative to the lower wall (lower wall, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) and the upper wall (upper wall, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the internal angles formed between the first channel wall and the top plate, between the second channel wall and the top plate as taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. to be the acute internal angle A and obtuse internal angle B, respectively taught by Shin et al. (see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) to prevent the gas venting channel from moving to the left or right from its position when external impacts or vibration are applied because the gas venting channel has such a shape of an approximately flat trapezoidal box with two obliquely truncated edge areas (see Shin et al. [0096]-[0100]).
Regarding Claim 20, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. in view of Shin et al. teaches wherein an acute internal angle (acute internal angle A, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) is formed between the lower wall and the sloped side wall, and, wherein an obtuse internal angle (obtuse internal angle B, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16) is formed between the upper wall and the sloped side wall.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schüssler et al. (US 2022/0271390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20240380069 A1) in view of Angerbauer et al. (DE 102012207770 A1, citation see machine translation, Examiner provided on 3/26/2026)
Regarding Claim 14, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. does not teach further comprising a seal having a first side that abuts the lower wall and a second side that abuts a top end of one of the battery cells, wherein the seal surrounds the cell degassing opening of said one of the battery cells.
Angerbauer et al. teaches further comprising a seal (24, Fig. 1) having a first side (first side, see Examiner Annotated Fig. 1-1) that abuts the lower wall (lower wall, see Examiner Annotated Fig. 1-1) and a second side (second side, see Examiner Annotated Fig. 1-1) that abuts a top end (top end, see Examiner Annotated Fig. 1-1) of one of the battery cells, wherein the seal surrounds the cell degassing opening (22, Fig. 1) of said one of the battery cells (10, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
2462
2351
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. by adding the seal taught by Angerbauer such that further comprising a seal having a first side that abuts the lower wall and a second side that abuts a top end of one of the battery cells, wherein the seal surrounds the cell degassing opening of said one of the battery cells taught by Angerbauer to arrange the sealing between the battery cells and degassing system so that the battery cells are coupled to the degassing system in a gas-tight manner (see Angerbauer [0017]).
Regarding Claim 15, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. in view of Angerbauer et al. teaches wherein the seal is composed of an electrically non-conductive material (rubber seals, see Angerbauer [0017]).
Regarding Claim 16, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. in view of Angerbauer et al. teaches wherein the seal has an annular shape (O-rings, see Angerbauer [0017]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/19/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the newly added recitation “wherein the lower wall is directly connected to the sloped upper wall by a sloped side wall, wherein the sloped side wall is sloped relative to the lower wall and the sloped upper wall” in claim 1 is rejected by the new ground rejection replies on the combination with Shin et al. (US 20230299415 A1); the newly added recitation “wherein the cell degassing opening (22) that is most upstream in the single degassing passage (40) and is arranged at a smallest cross-section of the passage cross-section (Al, A6) has no guide flaps (30) both prior to degassing and after degassing” in claim 10 is rejected by the new ground rejection replies on the combination with Kim et al. (US 20240380069 A1).
Neither Shin or Kim is applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(Gupte) US 20240258639 A1, Fig. 3;
(Shimizu) US 20130095356 A1, Fig. 5(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights