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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 12/08/25, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 5, and 16 is/are amended; claim(s) 2, 3, 6–15, and 17–19 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 4 is/are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections, set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/12/25, has/have been withdrawn. However, the previous claim objection has/have been maintained. Additionally, Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 6, lines 1 and 2, “a case of the at least one first battery cell in a direction” should read “[[a]] the case of the at least one first battery cell in a direction” for proper antecedence with respect to claim 1.
In claim 9, lines 4 and 5, “cases of the at least one first battery cell and the at least one second battery cell” should read “the cases of the at least one first battery cell and the at least one second battery cell” for proper antecedence with respect to claim 1.
In claim 10, lines 1 and 2, “wherein the at least one second tab terminal is on a first side of the cell stack, and further comprising securing …” is suggested to read “wherein the at least one second tab terminal is on a first side of the cell stack, the method further comprising securing …” for clearer syntax.
In claim 20, lines 2–4, “one of the battery cells in a cell stack … [and] another one of the battery cells in a cell stack; and a cross-member alongside a cell stack” is recommended to read, e.g., “a first battery cell[[s]] in a cell stack … [and] a second battery cell[s]] in [[a]] the cell stack; and a cross-member alongside [[a]] the cell stack” for proper antecedence.
In claim 20, line 7, “the first and second tab terminal bent” should read “the first and second tab terminals bent” for proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16–20 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 16 recites “the cross-member sandwiching the first and second tab terminals against the first and second cases” in lines 7 and 8. The required relation between the first and second tab terminals and the first and second cases is unclear (i.e., if the first and second terminals must be respectively or collectively sandwiched against the first and cases), rendering the intended scope indefinite.
Fig. 8B appears to depict terminals sandwiched against respective battery cases by the cross-member, though such is exemplary (per, e.g., ¶ 0058) and, thus, non-limiting. Thus, based on the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require a cross-member sandwiching first and second tab terminals against at least two battery cases either collectively or respectively, which appears consistent with fig. 8B and the broader disclosure.
Claim 20 recites “the first and second tab terminals joined directly to each other between the cross-member and cases of battery cells in the cell stack” in lines 5 and 6. It is unclear whether such cases are required to be cases of the previously recited “one of the battery cells” and “another one of the battery cells”, respectively, or other cases of additional cells in the stack.
Figs. 5 and 8 appear to depict first and second terminals extending from first and second battery cases, respectively. Thus, for this Office Action claim 20 will be interpreted to require first and second tab terminals joined directly to each other between the cross-member and the respective cases from which the terminals extend.
Claim 20 further recites “the first and second tab terminal bent against the cases of battery cells in the cell stack” in line 7. The required relation between the first and second tab terminals and the number of cases is unclear (i.e., if the first and second terminals must be respectively or collectively sandwiched against the first and second terminals’ cases), rendering the intended scope indefinite.
Similar to above, for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require first and second tab terminals bent against at least two cases either collectively or respectively, which appears consistent with fig. 8B and the broader disclosure.
The remaining dependent claims fail to correct claim 16’s deficiencies and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 16 and 18–20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maguire et al. (US 20240079736 A1, EFD 12/09/22) (Maguire).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Examiner further notes that claims 16–20’s subject matter appears unsupported in the provisional application (63/403,445) filed 09/02/22, and, thus, at least these claims are afforded an effective filing date of 02/01/23 as the non-provisional filing date.
Regarding claims 16, 18, and 19, Maguire discloses a battery pack assembly (traction battery pack, Title and fig. 10), comprising (per annot. fig. 10 below) a first battery cell within a cell stack (noted), the first battery cell having a first tab terminal extending from a first case (per below); a second battery cell within the cell stack (noted), the second battery cell having a second tab terminal extending from a second case (per below); and a cross-member (insulation layer 90, in spanning the length of the stack and confining the terminals to the cases, reasonably constitutes a “cross-member,” absent special definition or additional recitation), the first and second tab terminals joined to each other between the cross-member and the first and second cases (see welding spots S below and ¶ 0052), the cross-member sandwiching the first and second tab terminals against the first and second cases (per below and ¶ 0020).
PNG
media_image1.png
259
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on the following:
(claim 18) the first and second tab terminals are directly joined to each other with at least one weld (per S spots above and ¶ 0052);
(claim 19) the first and second battery cells are constituents of a traction battery pack (by being a traction pack, per Title).
Regarding claim 20, Maguire discloses a battery pack assembly (e.g., Title, fig. 10), comprising (per annot. fig. 10 above) a first tab terminal extending from one of the battery cells in a cell stack (noted); a second tab terminal extending from another one of the battery cells in a cell stack (noted); and a cross-member alongside a cell stack (insulation layer 90, in spanning the length of the stack, reasonably constitutes a “cross-member,” absent special definition or additional recitation), the first and second tab terminals joined directly to each other between the cross-member and cases of battery cells in the cell stack (via welding spots S above and ¶ 0052), the first and second tab terminal bent against the cases of battery cells in the cell stack (per above and ¶ 0020).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–3, 5–8 and 10–14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20200035966 A1) (Jin), taken alone or in view of Shin (KR 20090093222 A).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 12, Jin discloses a method of assembling a battery module (e.g., Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2, and 4).
Jin further discloses that modules are known to be used in battery packs for proper capacity and output when used in EVs (¶ 0004) but appears to fail to explicitly articulate such a pack.
As Jin is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery modules/packs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Jin’s module into an EV traction battery pack with the reasonable expectation of forming a successfully powered EV (MPEP 2143 (A.)).
Jin further discloses (per annot. fig. 10 below) that the method comprises bending at least one first tab terminal of at least one first battery cell as well as bending at least one second tab terminal of at least one second battery cell (first/second terminals).
PNG
media_image2.png
313
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although Jin fails to explicitly disclose that each terminal is bent before positioning the cell along an axis of a cell stack, per MPEP 2144.04 (IV.)(C.), transposing method steps is prima facie obvious absent unexpected results. As Jin discloses a substantially similar battery module/pack with bent and connected terminals, absent demonstrated criticality to the order of bending versus positioning the cells, it is submitted that this sequence is obvious over Jin.
Alternatively, Shin, in teaching a battery pack (Title) including cells with welded terminals (FIG. 9), teaches that the terminals may be bent before or after stacking the cells (p. 3, last ¶).
Shin is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery packs.
As Shin recognizes the equivalence of bending the terminals before or after stacking the cells, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to bend the terminals before stacking the cells, as suggested by Shin, with a reasonable expectation of forming successfully bent terminals ready for joining.
Jin further discloses securing the at least one first tab terminal to the at least one second tab terminal after bending the at least one first tab terminal and the at least one second tab terminal (via welding, e.g., ¶ 0071, 0073; see also L in fig. 4); and
prior to the securing, inserting a backer tower between the at least one first tab terminal and a case of the at least one first battery cell, and between the at least one second tab terminal and a case of the at least one second battery cell (structure 160 in Jin’s annot. fig. 10, in supporting the module (¶ 0048) and, thus, leads/terminals between the cells and leads, reasonably constitutes a “backer tower,” absent additional recitation; compare to substantially similar ref. 82 in instant fig. 8A; note that this structure would reasonably be inserted before welding to be able to weld against it).
Jin further discloses 1) that the backer tower is received within an aperture (i.e., within the opening in fig. 10) and that 2) the module of fig. 10 may contain a complex shape such as a cartridge for fixing the pouch batteries to fixedly receive the terminals (¶ 0072), though Jin appears to fail to embody such within fig. 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a cartridge to accommodate Jin’s cells with the reasonable expectation of fixedly receiving the cells and terminals, as suggested by Jin.
Thus, modified Jin would disclose that the backer tower is received within an aperture (opening above) of a fixture during the inserting to position the backer tower (the cartridge, in fixedly receiving the cells and terminals and, thus, the backer tower, reasonably constitutes a “fixture,” similar to instant fig. 8A’s ref. 74).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on the following:
(claim 3) further comprising securing the at least one first tab terminal to the at least one second tab terminal with at least one weld (Jin, e.g., ¶ 0071 and 0073);
(claim 12) the at least one first battery cell and the at least one second battery cell are battery cells of a traction battery pack (by incorporating Jin’s module into EV and, thus, traction battery pack).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the securing electrically connects the at least one first tab terminal to the at least one second tab terminal (by welding the leads for external electrical connection, as implied in Jin’s ¶ 0007 and 0008).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising securing the at least one first tab terminal to the at least one second tab terminal by welding against the backer tower (e.g., Jin’s annot. fig. 10, ¶ 0071 and 0073).
Regarding claims 6–8, modified Jin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one first tab terminal extends from a case of the at least one first battery cell in a direction (extends perpendicular to stacking axis in Jin’s annot. fig. 10), wherein bending the at least one first tab terminal is a bending with reference to the direction (bending to be parallel to stacking axis), wherein,
after bending the at least one first tab terminal, portions of the at least one first tab terminal extend axially in a first direction, and, after bending the at least one second tab terminal, portions of the at least one second tab terminal extend axially in a second direction opposite the first direction (see bent portions of each terminal’s extending parallel to stacking axis and in opposite directions to each other, Id.), wherein,
after bending the at least one first tab terminal, portions of the at least one first tab terminal are oriented perpendicular to other portions of the at least one first tab terminal (bent portions parallel to stacking axis, straight portions perpendicular, Id.).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Jin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one second tab terminal is on a first side of the cell stack (Jin’s annot. fig. 10), and further comprising securing at least one second tab terminal on an opposite, second side of the at least one second battery cell to at least one third tab terminal of at least one third battery cell (Jin’s fig. 2; note that although Jin lists fig. 2 as related art, as Jin’s inventiveness centers around the lead structure at a given end of the cell stack, it seems that, in disclosing the lead structure at one end, Jin also embodies the lead structure at the opposite end, which, as seen in fig. 2, includes welding a second terminal on an opposite, second side of the second cell to a third terminal of a third cell),
further comprising, prior to securing the at least one second tab terminal on the second side to the at least one third tab terminal, bending the at least one second tab terminal on the second side, and bending the at least one third tab terminal (as seen in, e.g., Jin’s figs. 2 and 10, welding occurs at the overlapping portion of the leads, which cannot occur without first bending them).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jin discloses the method of claim 1.
Jin further discloses that the cells are pouch cells (e.g., FIG. 1, ¶ 0011), as well as that lithium secondary batteries are advantageous over Ni-based batteries due to free (dis)charge and high energy density, though Jin appears to fail to explicitly disclose that the pouch cells are such lithium batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ Li-ion pouch cells as Jin’s cells with the reasonable expectation of providing high energy density and free (dis)charge, as suggested by Jin.
Regarding claim 14, modified Jin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one first battery cell includes two first battery cells each having one first tab terminal, and the at least one second battery cell includes two second battery cells each having one second tab terminal (as the cells/terminals are freely selectable, e.g., Jin’s subsequent cells with welded terminals (as implied in Jin’s fig. 2 and 0019) could be the next first and second cells/terminals such that each of the “first and second cells” would include two cells/terminals).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20200035966 A1) (Jin), taken alone or in view of Shin (KR 20090093222 A), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Chen et al. (WO 2023123350 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20240145856 A1) (Chen).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jin discloses the method of claim 1.
However, in being unconcerned with the casing surrounding the cells and terminals, modified Jin fails to explicitly disclose that the method further comprises, after the securing, positioning a cross-member adjacent the at least one first tab terminal and the at least one second tab terminal such that the at least one first tab terminal and the at least one second tab terminal are sandwiched between the cross-member and cases of the at least one first battery cell and the at least one second battery cell.
Chen, in teaching a battery module and pack (Title) with pouch cells including terminals welded together (e.g., FIG. 5), teaches, as part of the module’s casing, end plate 2 adjacent the terminals and spanning across the cells’ stacking direction (FIG. 2) and including exhaust holes 21 to slow down the cells’ thermal runaway (¶ 0058).
Chen is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery modules/packs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Jin's cells should necessarily be housed in some casing for storage and protection, and, as demonstrated by Chen, the skilled artisan would find it obvious, in incorporating Jin’s cells into a casing such as Chen’s after securing the terminals, to position an end plate with exhaust holes spanning across the cell’s stacking direction to slow down the cells’ thermal runaway, as suggested by Chen.
Thus, in installing the end plate, modified Jin would disclose, after the securing, positioning a cross-member adjacent the at least one first tab terminal and the at least one second tab terminal such that the at least one first tab terminal and the at least one second tab terminal are sandwiched between the cross-member and cases of the at least one first battery cell and the at least one second battery cell (the end plate, in being adjacent the terminals and spanning the full stacking direction, reasonably constitutes the cross-member, which, under broadest reasonable interpretation of “sandwich”, does not seem required to contact the terminals as long as the cross-member is adjacent; thus, the terminals would be “sandwiched” between the cross-member and battery cases).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20200035966 A1) (Jin), taken alone or in view of Shin (KR 20090093222 A), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Osborne et al. (US 20150380697 A1) (Osborne).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jin discloses the method of claim 14.
Jin discloses the two first cells and two second cells (see claim 14) and appears to allow other terminals to be welded alongside the depicted terminals (¶ 0026), as well as that the batteries may be connected in series and/or parallel (¶ 0048), but fails to explicitly disclose that the securing includes securing the first tab terminals of the two first battery cells directly to the second tab terminals of the two second battery cells.
Osborne, in teaching a battery pack with welded terminals (e.g., Title, fig. 11d), teaches either coupling one set of terminals together or two sets altogether depending on whether the cells are to be connected in series or parallel (fig. 11d, ¶ 0105).
Osborne is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely terminal connections in battery packs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect either one set or two sets of terminals together—and, thus, the first terminals to the second terminals—as suggested by Osborne, with a reasonable expectation of achieving the desired electrical connection for higher-voltage (series) or higher-capacity (parallel) applications.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire et al. (US 20240079736 A1) (Maguire), as applied to claim 16, in view of Jin et al. (US 20200035966 A1) (Jin).
Regarding claim 17, Maguire discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 16.
Maguire further discloses that the battery cells are pouch cells (fig. 10), as well as using the cells in a traction battery pack for EVs (¶ 0002, 0003) but fails to specify the type of cell and, thus, that the first and second battery cells are lithium-ion cells.
Jin teaches pouch cells for EVs (e.g., fig. 1, ¶ 0002 and 0011), teaching that lithium secondary batteries are advantageous over Ni-based batteries due to free (dis)charge and high energy density (¶ 0002).
Maguire and Jin are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery packs for EVs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ Li-ion cells as Maguire’s pouch cells with the reasonable expectation of providing high energy density and free (dis)charge, as suggested by Jin.
Claim(s) 16–20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (KR 20170037157 A) (Han) in view of Chen et al. (WO 2023123350 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20240145856 A1) (Chen).
Regarding claim 16, Han discloses a battery pack assembly (e.g., ¶ 0017, fig. 4), comprising (per fig. 4) a first battery cell (40a) within a cell stack (pictured), the first battery cell having a first tab terminal (42) extending from a first case (pictured); a second battery cell (40b) within the cell stack, the second battery cell having a second tab terminal (41’) extending from a second case (pictured); the first and second tab terminals joined to each other and sandwiched between the first and second cases (at bent point).
Han further discloses that the terminals are respectively bent against the battery cases (fig. 4). However, in being unconcerned with the pack assembly’s exterior casing, Han fails to explicitly disclose a cross-member, the first and second tab terminals joined directly to each other between the cross-member and the cases of battery cells, the cross-member sandwiching the first and second tab terminals against the first and second cases.
Chen, in teaching a battery module and pack (Title) with pouch cells including terminals welded together (e.g., FIG. 5), teaches, as part of the module’s casing, end plate 2 adjacent the terminals and spanning across the cells’ stacking direction (FIG. 2) and including exhaust holes 21 to slow down the cells’ thermal runaway (¶ 0058).
Chen and Han are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery modules/packs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Han’s cells should necessarily be housed in some casing for storage and protection, and, as demonstrated by Chen, the skilled artisan would find it obvious, in incorporating Han’s cells into a casing such as Chen’s after securing the terminals, to position an end plate with exhaust holes spanning across the cell’s stacking direction to slow down the cells’ thermal runaway, as suggested by Chen.
Thus, in installing the end plate, modified Han would disclose a cross-member, the first and second tab terminals joined directly to each other between the cross-member and the cases of battery cells, the cross-member sandwiching the first and second tab terminals against the first and second cases (the end plate, in being adjacent the terminals and spanning the full stacking direction, reasonably constitutes the cross-member, which, under broadest reasonable interpretation of “sandwich”, does not seem required to contact the terminals as long as the cross-member is adjacent; thus, as the terminals are bent against the respective cases, the cross-member would “sandwich” the terminals against the cases, and the terminals would be joined to each other between the cross-member and cases).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, modified Han discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 16, wherein the first and second battery cells are lithium-ion pouch cells (Han, ¶ 0058 and fig. 4) and are constituents of a traction battery pack (by the pack’s being applied in an EV, e.g., Han’s ¶ 0060 and 0061).
Regarding claim 18, modified Han discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 16, wherein the first and second tab terminals are directly joined to each other with at least one weld (per Han’s ¶ 0050, the leads/terminals may be welded).
Regarding claim 20, Han discloses a battery pack assembly (e.g., ¶ 0017, fig. 4), comprising (per. fig. 4) a first tab terminal (42) extending from one of the battery cells (40a) in a cell stack (pictured); a second tab terminal (41’) extending from another one of the battery cells (40b) in [the] cell stack; the first and second tab terminals joined directly to each other between the cases of battery cells in the cell stack (at bent point), the first and second tab terminal bent against the cases of battery cells in the cell stack (42 and 41’ bent respectively against 40a and 40b).
However, in being unconcerned with the pack assembly’s exterior casing, Han fails to explicitly disclose a cross-member alongside [the] cell stack, the first and second tab terminals joined directly to each other between the cross-member and the cases of battery cells.
Chen, in teaching a battery module and pack (Title) with pouch cells including terminals welded together (e.g., FIG. 5), teaches, as part of the module’s casing, end plate 2 adjacent the terminals and spanning across the cells’ stacking direction (FIG. 2) and including exhaust holes 21 to slow down the cells’ thermal runaway (¶ 0058).
Chen and Han are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery modules/packs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Han’s cells should necessarily be housed in some casing for storage and protection, and, as demonstrated by Chen, the skilled artisan would find it obvious, in incorporating Han’s cells into a casing such as Chen’s after securing the terminals, to position an end plate with exhaust holes spanning across the cell’s stacking direction to slow down the cells’ thermal runaway, as suggested by Chen.
Thus, in installing the end plate, modified Han would disclose a cross-member alongside [the] cell stack, the first and second tab terminals joined directly to each other between the cross-member and the cases of battery cells (the end plate, in being adjacent the terminals and spanning the full stacking direction, reasonably constitutes the cross-member, which is not required to contact the terminals as long as it is adjacent; thus, the terminals would be joined directly to each other between the cross-member and the respective cases).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 16, and 20 have been considered. Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections—which, as noted above, have been withdrawn—and necessitated the new grounds of rejection citing a different embodiment of Jin, as well as the separate, new sets of rejections citing the new references Maguire and Han, as established above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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 on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/24/2026
Prosecution Insights