DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 9/17/2025.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The terms “one mating feature” and “one retention feature” introduces subject matter that was not reasonably conveyed by the originally filed specifications or drawings. The new claim therefore constitutes new matter not supported by the original disclosure. The new matter will not be examined.
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(s) 1, 10, 13, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margrave (US 8925189) in view of Coyle (US 7182637).
Regarding claim 1, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) a battery pack electrical connector assembly (i.e. column 1, lines 23 – 30), comprising:
an outer connector (20) having a collar (32) that bonds to an enclosure (12), the outer connector (20) including one or more outer connector apertures (18); and
an inner connector (22) configured to transition back-and-forth between an engaged position and a disengaged position (i.e. inner connector is capable of transitioning between an engaged position and a disengaged position) with the outer connector (20), the inner connector (22) received within one of the outer connector apertures (18) when in the engaged position (see figures 3 – 4).
But Margrave does not explicitly disclose wherein the collar bonded to the enclosure with an adhesive that is sandwiched between the collar and the enclosure.
Coyle teaches (figures 2 and 3) a connector wherein the collar (70) bonded to the enclosure (74) with an adhesive (i.e. column 5, lines 7 – 11) that is sandwiched between the collar (70) and the enclosure (74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave with the connector assembly as disclosed by Coyle to provide the collar being bonded to the enclosure with an adhesive that is sandwiched between the collar and the enclosure, to improve the bonding strength and enhance resistance to mechanical stresses.
Regarding claim 10, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 1.
But Margrave does not explicitly disclose wherein the collar is bonded to an exterior surface of the enclosure.
Coyle teaches (figures 2 and 3) a connector wherein the collar (70) is bonded to an exterior surface of the enclosure (surface of 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave with the connector assembly as disclosed by Coyle to provide the collar being bonded to an exterior surface of the enclosure, to improve the bonding strength and enhance resistance to mechanical stresses.
Regarding claim 13, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 1, wherein the inner connector (22) is a first inner connector (22) received within a first one of the outer connector apertures (18) when in the engaged position, and further comprising a second inner connector (22) that is configured to transition back-and-forth between an engaged position and a disengaged position with the outer connector (i.e. 22 is capable of transitioning back and forth between an engaged position and a disengaged position with 20), the second inner connector (22) received within a second one of the outer connector apertures (18) when in the engaged position (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) a method of securing an electrical connector within a battery pack (i.e. column 1, lines 23 – 30), comprising:
the outer connector (20) including at least one outer connector aperture (18); and
engaging an inner connector (22) within the outer connector (20).
But Margrave does not explicitly disclose adhesively bonding a collar of an outer connector to an enclosure.
Coyle teaches (figures 2 and 3) a connector adhesively bonding (i.e. column 5, lines 7 – 11) a collar (70) of an outer connector (12, 36) to an enclosure (74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave with the connector assembly as disclosed by Coyle to provide the collar being bonded to the enclosure with an adhesive that is sandwiched between the collar and the enclosure, to improve the bonding strength and enhance resistance to mechanical stresses.
Regarding claim 19, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the method of claim 14.
But Margrave does not explicitly disclose further comprising adhesively securing the collar to an exterior surface of the enclosure.
Coyle teaches (figures 2 and 3) a connector further comprising adhesively (i.e. column 5, lines 7 – 11) securing the collar (70) to an exterior surface of the enclosure (surface of 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave with the connector assembly as disclosed by Coyle to provide the method further comprising adhesively securing the collar to the enclosure to bond the collar to the enclosure, to improve the bonding strength and enhance resistance to mechanical stresses.
Claim(s) 2 – 4, 11, 15, 16, 20 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margrave (US 8925189) in view of Coyle (US 7182637) and further in view of Rhein (US 20110189888).
Regarding claim 2, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 1.
But Margrave and Coyle do not explicitly disclose further comprising a header and a base of the outer connector, the header removably engageable with the base, the inner connector engaged with the header when in the engaged position, the base including the collar.
Rhein teaches (figures 1 – 7, annotation) a connector assembly further comprising a header (316a) and a base (314) of the outer connector (412), the header (316a) removably engageable with the base (314, see figure 6 and annotation of figure 7), the inner connector (302, 322) engaged with the header (316a) when in the engaged position, the base (314) including the collar (418).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave and Coyle with the connector assembly as disclosed by Rhein to provide a header and a base of the outer connector, the header removably engageable with the base, the inner connector engaged with the header when in the engaged position, the base including the collar, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Rhein’s header/base arrangement as a known, predictable modular housing architecture that facilitates the assembly, retention, and alignment of internal connector components.
~ Please see annotation of figure 7 in the Rhein reference, where the header 316a and the spring clip 317a can be seen. Additionally, it contains the explanation on how the header removably engages with the base.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 2.
But Margrave and Coyle do not explicitly disclose further comprising at least one spring clip that snap-fits the header to the base when the header is engaged with the base.
Rhein teaches (figures 1 – 7, annotation) a connector assembly further comprising at least one spring clip (317a) that snap-fits the header (316a) to the base (314) when the header (316a) is engaged with the base (314).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave and Coyle with the connector assembly as disclosed by Rhein to provide at least one spring clip that snap-fits the header to the base when the header is engaged with the base, to improve the mechanical connection between the header and the base.
Regarding claim 4, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 2.
But Margrave and Coyle do not explicitly disclose further comprising a seal extending circumferentially about the header, the seal sealing an interface between the header and the base when the header is engaged with the base.
Rhein teaches (figures 1 – 7, annotation) a connector assembly further comprising a seal (326) extending circumferentially about the header (316a), the seal (328) sealing an interface between the header (316a) and the base (314) when the header (316a) is engaged with the base (314).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave and Coyle with the connector assembly as disclosed by Rhein to provide a seal extending circumferentially about the header, the seal sealing an interface between the header and the base when the header is engaged with the base, to provide reliability and improved protection against environmental factors such as moisture, dust, or other contaminants.
Regarding claim 11, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 1, wherein the enclosure (12) is a metal or a metal alloy, wherein the outer connector (20, 30) is a polymer-based material (i.e. column 6, lines 23 – 28).
Although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the enclosure is a metal or a metal alloy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an enclosure made of metal or a metal alloy to improve durability of the enclosure, as these are well-known materials commonly used in the art for their high mechanical strength, allowing the enclosure to withstand impacts, vibration, and other mechanical stresses. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Col. V. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 15, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the method of claim 14, further comprising engaging the inner connector (22) by removably coupling the inner connector (22) to a header (36) of the outer connector (20).
But Margrave and Coyle do not explicitly disclose wherein the header removably coupled to a base of the outer connector.
Rhein teaches (figures 1 – 7, annotation) a connector assembly wherein the header (316a) removably coupled to a base (314, see figure 6 and annotation of figure 7) of the outer connector (412).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave and Coyle with the connector assembly as disclosed by Rhein to provide the header being removably coupled to a base of the outer connector, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Rhein’s header/base arrangement as a known, predictable modular housing architecture that facilitates the assembly, retention, and alignment of internal connector components.
Regarding claim 16, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the method of claim 15.
But Margrave and Coyle do not explicitly disclose the method further comprising providing a seal between the base of the outer connector and the header of the outer connector.
Rhein teaches (figures 1 – 7, annotation) a connector assembly further comprising providing a seal (328) between the base (314) of the outer connector (412) and the header (316a) of the outer connector (412).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave and Coyle with the connector assembly as disclosed by Rhein to provide a seal between the base of the outer connector and the header of the outer connector, to provide reliability and improved protection against environmental factors such as moisture, dust, or other contaminants.
Regarding claim 20, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 2.
But Margrave and Coyle do not explicitly disclose wherein the inner connector is removably engaged directly with the base when the inner connector is in the engaged position with the outer connector.
Rhein teaches (figures 1 – 7, annotation) a connector wherein the inner connector (302, 322) is removably engaged directly with the base (314) when the inner connector (302, 322) is in the engaged position with the outer connector (412).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave and Coyle with the connector assembly as disclosed by Rhein to provide wherein the inner connector is removably engaged directly with the base when the inner connector is in the engaged position with the outer connector, to achieve proper mechanical alignment and electrical engagement with mating components.
Regarding claim 21, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 20, wherein the inner connector (22, 24) removably engages the base (20) through at least one engagement tab (68).
Regarding claim 22, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 2, wherein the base (20) includes at least one retention feature, and the inner connector (22, 24) includes at least one mating feature that cooperates with the retention feature of the base (20) to secure the inner connector (22, 24) in the engaged position independently of the header (i.e. see header near 38 in figure 3).
Regarding claim 23, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 2.
But Margrave and Coyle do not explicitly disclose wherein the inner connector is secured to the base of the outer connector in the engaged position without being directly secured to the header of the outer connector.
Rhein teaches (figures 1 – 7, annotation) a connector wherein the inner connector (302, 322) is secured to the base (314, see figure 6 and annotation of figure 7) of the outer connector (412) in the engaged position without being directly secured to the header (316a) of the outer connector (412).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave and Coyle with the connector assembly as disclosed by Rhein to provide wherein the inner connector is secured to the base of the outer connector in the engaged position without being directly secured to the header of the outer connector, to improve the stability of the inner connector engagement while preserving modularity of the header.
Regarding claim 24, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the method of claim 14.
But Margrave does not explicitly disclose wherein the engaging comprises engaging the inner connector with a base of the outer connector, the base removably engaged with a header of the outer connector, the header not directly retaining the inner connector.
Rhein teaches (figures 1 – 7, annotation) a connector wherein the engaging (i.e. see figure 1) comprises engaging the inner connector (302, 322) with a base (314) of the outer connector (412), the base (314) removably engaged with a header (316a) of the outer connector (412), the header (316a) not directly retaining the inner connector (302, 322).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave with the connector assembly as disclosed by Rhein to provide the engaging comprises engaging the inner connector with a base of the outer connector, the base removably engaged with a header of the outer connector, the header not directly retaining the inner connector, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Rhein’s header/base arrangement as a known, predictable modular housing architecture that facilitates the assembly, retention, and alignment of internal connector components.
Further, Coyle teaches (figures 2 and 3) a connector wherein the header including the collar (70) adhesively bonded (column 5, lines 7 – 11) to the enclosure (74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave and Rhein with the connector assembly as disclosed by Coyle to provide the header including the collar adhesively bonded to the enclosure, to improve the bonding strength and enhance resistance to mechanical stresses.
Claim(s) 5 – 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margrave (US 8925189) in view of Coyle (US 7182637) and further in view of Fukamachi (US 6579111).
Regarding claim 5, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the enclosure (12) of the assembly of claim 2.
But Margrave and Coyle do not explicitly disclose wherein the base includes at least one grounding opening, each grounding opening receiving at least one enclosure tab of the enclosure, the inner connector grounded to the enclosure through the at least one enclosure tab when the inner connector is in the engaged position.
Fukamachi teaches (figures 1 – 9) a connector wherein the base (22) includes at least one grounding opening (see opening in 55), each grounding opening (see opening in 55) receiving at least one enclosure tab (13) of the enclosure (10), the inner connector (20) grounded to the enclosure (10) through the at least one enclosure tab (13) when the inner connector (20) is in the engaged position (see figures 5 and 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave and Coyle with the connector assembly as disclosed by Fukamachi to provide the base including at least one grounding opening, each grounding opening receiving at least one enclosure tab of the enclosure, at least the inner connector grounded to the enclosure through the at least one enclosure tab when the inner connector is in the engaged position, as this modification represents a routine design choice to ensure the proper electrical and mechanical connectivity in the connector assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 5.
But Margrave and Coyle do not explicitly disclose wherein the inner connector includes at least one grounding tab that contacts the at least one enclosure tab to ground the inner connector to the enclosure.
Fukamachi teaches (figures 1 – 9) a connector wherein the inner connector (20) includes at least one grounding tab (25) that contacts the at least one enclosure tab (13) to ground the inner connector (20) to the enclosure (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave and Coyle with the connector assembly as disclosed by Fukamachi to provide the inner connector including at least one grounding tab that contacts the at least one enclosure tab to ground the inner connector to the enclosure, as this modification represents a routine design choice to ensure the proper electrical and mechanical connectivity in the connector assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 1.
But Margrave and Coyle do not explicitly disclose wherein the outer connector includes at least one grounding opening, each grounding opening receiving at least one enclosure tab of the enclosure, the inner connector grounded to the enclosure through the at least one enclosure tab when the inner connector is in the engaged position.
Fukamachi teaches (figures 1 – 9) a connector wherein the outer connector (30) includes at least one grounding opening (33a), each grounding opening (33a) receiving at least one enclosure tab (13) of the enclosure (10), the inner connector (20) grounded to the enclosure (10) through the at least one enclosure tab (13) when the inner connector (20) is in the engaged position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave and Coyle with the connector assembly as disclosed by Fukamachi to provide the outer connector including at least one grounding opening, each grounding opening receiving at least one enclosure tab of the enclosure, at least the inner connector grounded to the enclosure through the at least one enclosure tab when the inner connector is in the engaged position, as this modification represents a routine design choice to ensure the proper electrical and mechanical connectivity in the connector assembly.
~ Please see annotation of figure 1 in the Fukamachi reference, where at least one ground opening 33a can be seen.
PNG
media_image2.png
422
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the assembly of claim 7.
But Margrave and Coyle do not explicitly disclose wherein the inner connector includes at least one grounding tab that contacts the at least one enclosure tab to ground the inner connector to the enclosure.
Fukamachi teaches (figures 1 – 9) a connector wherein the inner connector (20) includes at least one grounding tab (25) that contacts the at least one enclosure tab (13) to ground the inner connector (20) to the enclosure (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave with the connector assembly as disclosed by Fukamachi to provide the inner connector including at least one grounding tab that contacts the at least one enclosure tab to ground the inner connector to the enclosure, as this modification represents a routine design choice to ensure the proper electrical and mechanical connectivity in the connector assembly.
Regarding claim 17, Margrave teaches (figures 1 – 4) the method of claim 14.
But Margrave and Coyle do not explicitly disclose further comprising contacting an enclosure tab of the enclosure against a grounding tab of the inner connector to ground the inner connector to the enclosure.
Fukamachi teaches (figures 1 – 9) a connector further comprising contacting an enclosure tab (13) of the enclosure (10) against a grounding tab (25) of the inner connector (20) to ground the inner connector (20) to the enclosure (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margrave and Coyle with the connector assembly as disclosed by Fukamachi to provide the method further comprising contacting an enclosure tab of the enclosure against a grounding tab of the inner connector to ground the inner connector to the enclosure, as this modification represents a routine design choice to ensure the proper electrical and mechanical connectivity in the connector assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 – 9, filed 9/17/2025, with respect to the drawing objections, the claim objections, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn. The claim objections have been withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, Applicant states that “The skilled person would not modify Margrave to adhesively bond the alleged collar 32 of the outer connector body 30. Margrave desires the connection of the outer connector body 20 to the case 12 to be a connection executed via mechanical fasteners. The connection through fasteners provides the torque-controlled clamp load necessary to execute the method of assembly taught in Margrave. An adhesive bond would not have this control.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Substituting one known attachment technique for another is a predictable design choice. Coyle expressly teaches that “Connectors 12,36 may be secured within their respective panels 62,74 by means other than the flange-and-retainer arrangement described herein. For example, they may be secured by the use of adhesives, threaded fasteners, or flanged posts that fit through small holes in the panel.” in column 5, lines 7 – 11. Adhesive bonding is a known alternative to mechanical fastening for securing connector components. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that either form of attachment could be used depending on manufacturing preferences and/or cost considerations. Such substitution constitutes routine optimization of known methods and is considered obvious.
Secondly, Applicant states that “The torquing of the fasteners 42 also causes compression of the ground tabs 46 within the electromagnetic shield. The ground tabs 66 are sandwiched between an outer connector surface 34 and an inside surface 16 of the case. Adhesively bonding the outer connector 20 to the case 12 would not draw the outer connector 20 along the axis A to compress the springs as the outer connector 20 is bonded to the case 12.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that adhesive bonding may be used in conjunction with or in place of mechanical fasteners to achieve a secure attachment, as commonly practiced in the art. Nothing in the claims requires that the adhesive bond provide a specific “clamp load” nor does the claim recite any limitation concerning seal compression forces. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Thirdly, Applicant states that “Further, the seal 26 and electromagnetic shield would not be as serviceable if the outer connector 20 were adhesively bonded to the case. Severing the adhesive bond would be necessary to both access the electromagnetic shield and the seal 26. The skilled person would not make such a modification for at least this reason as well.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s assertion that adhesive bonding complicates later maintenance does not amount to teaching away. A reference teaches away only when it criticizes or discourages the proposed modification (In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Neither Margrave nor Coyle suggests that adhesive bonding is unsuitable to the goals of the connector assembly. At most, Applicant identifies a known trade-off associated with adhesives. The mere existence of disadvantages does not amount to teaching away.
Fourthly, Applicant states that “The modification irrefutably increases the number of components in Margrave. The modification thus does not reduce manufacturing complexity or improve serviceability as is alleged. The reasoning offered in support of the modification is speculative and finds no factual basis in the cited art. The reasoning used to justify the modification is not rationally based. There is thus no prima facie case, and the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn.”. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (new rationale).
Fifthly, Applicant states that “Further, Margrave already includes ground tabs 66 sandwiched between the outer connector surface 34 and the outside surface 16 of the case 12. The rejection of claim 5 provides no rationally based reason to modify Margrave to include a base having a grounding opening that receives an enclosure tab of the enclosure. The structure of Margrave is already grounded to the enclosure. The rejection simply selects elements from the prior art using the claims as a guide. This is hindsight, not obviousness. The reasoning for the alleged modification to Margrave indicates that the modification would “improve the mechanical stability of the connector between the inner connector and the outer connector.” The rejection provides no factual basis for this assertion.”. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (new rationale).
Sixthly, Applicant states that “Claim 17 recites the step of contacting an enclosure tab of the enclosure against a “grounding tab of the inner connector to ground the inner connector to the enclosure.” The rejection should be withdrawn for the reasons mentioned above in response to the rejection of claim 5. The proposed modification would not “improve the mechanical stability of the connector between the inner connector and the outer connector” as is alleged. This statement lacks any sort of factual basis in the cited art.”. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (new rationale).
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 Carlos E. Lopez-Pagan whose telephone number is (703)756-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/CARLOS E LOPEZ-PAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/THO D TA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights