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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 04/21/2026. Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanda (JP 2011249428 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kanda discloses a battery pack system (title; abstract), comprising: a first tab terminal (25); a second tab terminal (35) jointed to the first tab terminal (25) (see Fig. 1; [0030]); and at least one point (62) spaced a distance from the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals (see Figs. 1 and 6; [0033]-[0035]). Examiner notes that the limitation requiring “the at least one point configured to pierce at least the first tab terminal when the first tab terminal and the at least one point are shifted relative to each other such that the at least one point contacts the first tab terminal” is merely intended use language that fails to require structure not already present in Kanda. Examiner emphasizes that "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original), and a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114 (II). Thus, since Kanda discloses a first tab terminal (25), a second tab terminal (35), and at least one point (62) spaced a distance from the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals, it is clear that Kanda reads on all of the structural limitations of the claim. What’s more, Kanda discloses that the point (62) is able to split open the container (46) of the storage cell (11), which is made of an aluminum laminate film ([0028]; [0036]). Therefore, since the first tab terminal (25) is also made of aluminum ([0026]), it is clear that the at least one point (62) would be capable of piercing at least the first tab terminal (25) when the first tab terminal (25) and the at least one point (62) are shifted relative to each other in response to some external force such that the at least one point (62) contacts the first tab terminal (25). Thus, it is clear that Kanda reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses a cross-member (12) that includes the at least one point (62) (see Figs. 1 and 4; [0033]; [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Kanda further discloses that the cross-member (12) includes an aperture (see Modified Figure 1 below), the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals connected to each other and extending through the aperture (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0030]; [0035]), and the at least one point (62) disposed about a perimeter of the aperture (see Modified Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Kanda
Regarding claim 4, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 3. Kanda further discloses that the at least one point (62) can be located both on an inboard side and an outboard side of the aperture (see Modified Figure 1 above; see also Fig. 12), and Kanda also discloses that this battery pack system can have application in electric vehicles ([0002]). Therefore, while the limitation “with reference to an orientation of the aperture when installed within a vehicle” is merely intended use language that does not require further structure to the battery pack system itself, it is clear that the battery pack system disclosed by Kanda would satisfy this functional limitation no matter what orientation it has when it is installed within a vehicle. Thus, Kanda reads on all of the limitations in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Kanda further discloses that the cross-member (12) can be made of flame-retardant polypropylene ([0031]), reading on the claimed polymer-based material.
Regarding claim 6, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses that the at least one point (62) is part of a pointed edge that extends longitudinally (see Figs. 6 and 7; [0033]).
Regarding claim 7, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses that the at least one point (62) is part of a serrated edge (see Fig. 7; [0033]).
Regarding claim 8, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses that the point (62) can be made of a resin member ([0048]), reading on the claimed polymer-based material.
Regarding claim 9, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses that the first tab terminal (25) is made of aluminum ([0026]), and the second tab terminal (35) is made of copper ([0027]), reading on all of the limitations in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses that the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals each extend from a lithium-ion battery cell (11) ([0049]).
Regarding claim 21, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses a cross-member (12) having an aperture (see Modified Figure 1 above; [0031]), the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals connected to each other and extending through the aperture (see Modified Figure 1 above; [0030]; [0035]), the at least one point (62) disposed about a perimeter of the aperture such that the at least one point (62) provides a portion of a perimeter of the aperture (see Modified Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 22, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 4. Kanda further discloses that the at least one point (62) is integrally formed with the cross-member (12) at the perimeter of the aperture on a side of the cross-member (12) from which the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals extend toward the aperture (see Modified Figure 1 above; [0015]-[0016]; [0048]; see also Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 23, Kanda discloses a cross-member (12) having a first side, a second side opposite the first side, and an aperture extending through the cross-member (12) from the first side to the second side (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0031]); a first tab terminal (25) and a second tab terminal (35) each extending through the aperture from the first side to the second side (see Modified Figure 1 below), the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals joined together on the second side (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0030]); and at least one point (62) integrally formed with the cross-member (12) at a perimeter of the aperture on the first side, the at least one point 962) spaced from the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0033]-[0035]; [0015]-[0016]; [0048]; see also Fig. 13). As set forth above for claim 1, Kanda discloses that the at least one point (62) is clearly capable of piercing at least the first tab terminal (25) when the first tab terminal (25) and the at least one point (62) are shifted relative to each other. Thus, Kanda reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
504
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Kanda
Regarding claim 24, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 23. Kanda further discloses that the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals each extend through a respective one of a plurality of apertures in the cross-member (12) (see Modified Figure 1 above), each of the respective apertures having at least one point (62) integrally formed at its perimeter (see Modified Figure 1 above; [0015]-[0016]; [0048]; see also Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 25, Kanda discloses all of the limitations in claim 25 present in claims 23 and 24, as set forth above. Kanda further discloses that the at least one point (62) formed at a perimeter of at least one of the apertures on the first side of the cross-member (12) is part of a serrated edge comprising a plurality of points (62) spaced from the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals (see Fig. 7; [0033]; see also Modified Figure 1 above). Thus, Kanda reads on all of the limitations in claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 25. Kanda further discloses that the serrated edge comprising the points (62) can be integrally formed with the cross-member (12) ([0015]-[0016]; [0048]; see also Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 27, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 25. Kanda further discloses that the serrated edge projects into the aperture and can be located both on an inboard side and an outboard side of the aperture (see Modified Figure 1 above; see also Fig. 12). Kanda also discloses that this battery pack system can have application in electric vehicles ([0002]). Therefore, while the limitation “with reference to an orientation of the aperture when installed within a vehicle” is merely intended use language that does not require further structure to the battery pack system itself, it is clear that the battery pack system disclosed by Kanda would satisfy this functional limitation no matter what orientation it has when it is installed within a vehicle. Thus, Kanda reads on all of the limitations in claim 27.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherng (US 2008/0241671) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Cherng discloses a battery pack system (title; abstract), comprising: a first tab terminal (121); a second tab terminal joined to the first tab terminal (121); and at least one point (223) spaced a distance from the first (121) and second tab terminals (see Modified Figure 4 below; [0020]-[0022]), the at least one point (223) configured to pierce at least the first tab terminal (121) when the first tab terminal (121) and the at least one point (223) are shifted relative to each other such that the at least one point (223) contacts the first tab terminal (121) (see Figs. 4-6; [0022]).
PNG
media_image3.png
506
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Cherng
Regarding claim 2, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses a cross-member (2) that includes the at least one point (223) (see Figs. 1-4; [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Cherng further discloses an aperture in the cross-member (2) (see Modified Figure 2 below), the first (121) and second tab terminals connected to each other (see Fig. 4), the first tab terminal (121) extending through the aperture (see Modified Figure 2 below; [0021]-[0022]), and the at least one point (223) disposed about a perimeter of the aperture (see Figs. 1 and 3; [0021]).
PNG
media_image4.png
418
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Cherng
Regarding claim 4, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 3. Cherng further discloses that the at least one point (223) is disposed along one side of the aperture (see Figs. 1-4; [0021]). Examiner notes that the limitation “with reference to an orientation of the aperture when installed within a vehicle” is merely intended use language that fails to require structure not already present in the battery pack system of Cherng. Furthermore, since the at least one point (223) disclosed by Cherng is disposed along one side of the aperture, it is clear that the battery pack system of Cherng is capable of being installed within a vehicle such that the at least one point is disposed along an inboard side of the aperture with reference to an orientation of the aperture within the vehicle. Thus, Cherng reads on all of the limitations in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Cherng further discloses that the cross-member (2) is formed of a plastic material ([0021]), reading on the claimed polymer-based material.
Regarding claim 6, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that the at least one point (223) is part of a cutting knife (221) with continuous teeth (see Figs. 1 and 3; [0021]). Thus, since the teeth on the cutting knife (221) are continuous, the teeth are considered to read on the claimed pointed edge that extends longitudinally.
Regarding claim 7, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that the at least one point (223) is part of a serrated edge (see Figs. 1 and 3; [0021]).
Regarding claim 9, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that all of the tab terminals in the battery pack system can be made of either aluminum or copper ([0020]), reading on all of the limitations in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that a 2 mm lateral displacement is sufficient for the at least one point (223) to cut the first tab terminal (121) ([0022]). Thus, Cherng necessarily satisfies the claimed limitation that the separation distance between the at least one point (223) and the first tab terminal (121) is three millimeters or less.
Regarding claim 11, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that each of the tab terminals each extend from a lithium-ion battery cell (1) ([0020]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 13, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that the first (121) and second tab terminals are joined together through an intermediate connector (see Modified Figure 4 below; [0022]).
PNG
media_image5.png
506
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Cherng
Regarding claim 21, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses a cross-member (2) having an aperture (see Modified Figure 2 above; [0021]), the first (121) and second tab terminals connected to each other (see Fig. 4; [0022]), the first tab terminal (121) extending through the aperture (see Modified Figure 2 below; [0021]-[0022]), and the at least one point (223) disposed about a perimeter of the aperture on a side of the cross-member (2) from which the first (121) and second tab terminals extend toward the aperture (see Figs. 1 and 3; [0021]).
Regarding claim 22, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 4. Cherng further discloses that the at least one point (223) is integrally formed with the cross-member (2) at the perimeter of the aperture on a side of the cross-member (2) from which the first (121) and second tab terminals extend toward the aperture (see Modified Figure 2 above; see also Figs. 1 and 4; [0021]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (JP 2011249428 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Khakhalev (US 2010/0190055) (of record).
Regarding claim 12, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses that the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals are electrically connected together by welding ([0030]). Kanda fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the welding involves a plurality of welds.
However, it is common in the art to weld tab terminals using a plurality of welds. For instance, Khakhalev teaches a similar battery pack system (title; abstract) comprising a first tab terminal (30A) and a second tab terminal (30B) that are electrically connected through a plurality of welds (22A, 22B) (see Figs. 3A and 3B; [0022]-[0033]). Khakhalev further teaches that these welds (22A, 22B) are sufficient to ensure electrical conduction between the various battery cells (24) ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the welding process disclosed by Kanda to include a plurality of welds, as taught by Khakhalev, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would ensure sufficient electrical connection between the first and second tab terminals.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherng (US 2008/0241671) (of record) in view Kanda (JP 2011249428 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 8, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that the panel (21) on the cross-member (2) which includes the at least one point (223) is made of a plastic material ([0021]; see also Fig. 1). However, Cherng fails to explicitly disclose the material composition of the at least one point (223).
Kanda teaches a similar battery pack system (title; abstract), comprising: a first tab terminal (25); a second tab terminal (35) (see Fig. 1; [0030]); and at least one point (62) spaced a distance from the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals (see Figs. 1 and 6; [0033]-[0035]), wherein the at least one point (62) is designed to split open a container (46) of a storage cell (11), which is made of an aluminum laminate film ([0028]; [0036]). Kanda further teaches that a cross-member (12) comprising the at least one point (62) is made of a resin material ([0031]), and the point (62) can also be made of a resin material and be integrally formed with the cross-member (12) in order to reduce cost ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the at least one point on the cross-member disclosed by Cherng to also be made of a plastic material, as taught by Kanda, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would reduce cost.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherng (US 2008/0241671) (of record) in view of Khakhalev (US 2010/0190055) (of record).
Regarding claim 12, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that the first (121) and second tab terminals are connected to each other through an intermediate connector (see Modified Figure 4 above; [0022]). However, Cherng fails to explicitly disclose that a plurality of welds electrically connect the first (121) and second tab terminals.
However, it is common in the art to electrically connect tab terminals through an intermediate connector by a plurality of welds. For instance, Khakhalev teaches a similar battery pack system (title; abstract) comprising a first tab terminal (30A) and a second tab terminal (30B) that are electrically connected through an intermediate connector (10) by a plurality of welds (22A, 22B) (see Figs. 3A and 3B; [0022]-[0033]). Khakhalev further teaches that these welds (22A, 22B) are sufficient to ensure electrical conduction between the various battery cells (24) ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the battery pack system disclosed by Cherng such that a plurality of welds electrically connect the first and second tab terminals, as taught by Khakhalev, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would ensure sufficient electrical conduction between the first and second tab terminals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome each and every drawings objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/06/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 04/21/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections of claims 3 and 4 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments against the Konda reference, examiner respectfully disagrees. First, applicant alleges that Kanda’s cutting blade (61, 62) and tab terminals (25, 35) are structurally different than the claimed point and first and second tab terminals because the tab terminals (25, 35) are not positioned adjacent to or in the path of the cutting blade (61, 62). However, while the tab terminals (25, 35) do protrude from the ends of the cell containers, as pointed out by applicant, they are also located directly across the cutting blade (61, 62), albeit covered by the cell containers (46) (see Modified Figure 1 below; Fig. 2; [0026]-[0029]). Nevertheless, this configuration clearly reads on the claimed limitation that the at least one point is “spaced a distance from the first and second tab terminals,” and applicant has failed to amend claim 1 to clarify the claimed “distance” in any way. To the extent that the limitation “configured to pierce at least the first tab terminal” adds any structure to the claimed point, examiner has already proven that Kanda’s cutting blade (61, 62) satisfies this limitation. Indeed, if Kanda’s point (62) is part of a cutting blade (61) that is able to split open the container (46) made of an aluminum laminate film ([0028]; [0036]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have also viewed Kanda’s point (62) as capable of piercing the first tab terminal (25), which is also made of aluminum ([0026]), when they are shifted relative to each other such that the at least one point (62) contacts the first tab terminal (25). Applicant disputes this reasoning as flawed because it requires adapting Kanda’s battery pack in a way foreign to Kanda’s disclosure in order to perform the claimed function. However, this is not persuasive because applicant’s arguments are based on intended use instead of structural differences between Kanda’s battery pack and the claimed battery pack. While Kanda does not envision the point (62) and the first tab terminal (25) as being shifted relative to each other such that they contact each other, applicant’s own disclosure only intends for the claimed point to be used in situations where an external load is applied to the vehicle containing the battery pack, such as when a pole contacts the side of the vehicle (see [0056]-[0057] of the instant specification). In other words, the claimed point is only intended to be used during a car crash. Thus, while Kanda’s invention does not contemplate a car crash, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kanda’s point (62) could shift and pierce the first tab terminal (25) as a result of damage done to the battery pack during a car crash without any modifications done to the original structure of Kanda’s battery pack. As set forth above, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" (MPEP 2114 (II)). Therefore, since Kanda includes all of the structural limitations of claim 1 and is capable of performing the intended function of the claim under the claimed circumstances, it is clear that Kanda reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
PNG
media_image6.png
481
378
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Kanda
Applicant further argues that Kanda’s aperture, as mapped by examiner in Modified Figure 1 above, fails to read on the claimed aperture. Applicant points out that Kanda’s stack plate opening (51) is only the central rectangular opening in the flat plate portion (52) that accommodates the body of the cell container (46), not an aperture through which tab terminals extend. However, examiner notes that Kanda’s stack plate opening (51) is not relied upon as the claimed aperture but, rather, the space between the flat plate portions (52) in the cross-member (12), as clearly seen in the Modified Figure 1 in the rejection of claim 3 above. Merriam-Webster defines an “aperture” as “an opening or open space” (see Aperture definition & meaning – merriam-webster). Thus, because the space located between the flat plate portions (52) and the outer frame portions (53) of the cross-member (12) clearly delimit an open space through which the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals extend (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0031]), under BRI, this space reads on the claimed aperture. Furthermore, the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals are connected to each other after extending through the aperture (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0030]), and the point (62) is located about a perimeter of the aperture (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0035]). Thus, Kanda clearly satisfies all of the claimed limitations related to the aperture. Therefore, applicant’s arguments against the Kanda reference are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image7.png
500
544
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Kanda
Regarding applicant’s arguments against the Cherng reference, examiner disagrees. First, applicant alleges that examiner labels the panel (21) disclosed by Cherng as the claimed second tab terminal. However, examiner nowhere even cites the panel (21) in the rejection of the claims, let alone maps it to the claimed second tab terminal. Indeed, as seen in Modified Figure 4 above, examiner clearly maps the first tab terminal to the anode leg (121) of the battery (1) closest to the cross-member (2) and maps the second tab terminal to the corresponding anode/cathode leg in the battery adjacent to the aforementioned battery (1). Furthermore, it is clear that these two terminals are electrically joined together ([0022]). Applicant further argues that Cherng’s power disconnection device (2) including the panel (21) fails to meet the structural requirements of the claimed cross-member. Examiner disagrees. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a “cross-member” as “a transverse support within a framework or structure” (see Cross member, N. Meanings, etymology and more | oxford English dictionary). Thus, under BRI, the power disconnection device (2) which includes a panel (21) that acts as a transverse support for a separation unit (22) (see Figs. 1 and 4; [0022]) clearly meets the structural requirements of a cross-member. Applicant points out that the cross-member according to the invention extends between cell stacks, supports the cells, and transfers loads. However, applicant fails to add any of this structure in the claims. Thus, it is clear that the Cherng’s disconnection device (2) reads on the claimed cross-member. Finally, applicant argues that the aperture (211) disclosed by Cherng does not satisfy the requirements of the claimed aperture. However, examiner notes that applicant’s arguments are based on a different embodiment disclosed by Cherng not relied upon in the rejection. Indeed, examiner does not cite the aperture (211) in Figs. 7-8 as the claimed aperture; instead, examiner points to the space surrounded by the panel (21), the fixing arms (222), and the cutting knife (221) as corresponding to the claimed aperture (see Modified Figure 2 above; [0021]). As can be seen in Modified Figure 2 above, the first tab terminal (121) extends through the aperture delimited by the panel (21), the fixing arms (222), and the cutting knife (221), and the at least one point (223) is located about a perimeter of the aperture. Thus, applicant’s arguments against the Cherng reference are not persuasive.
As such, claims 1-13 and 21-27 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights