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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments.
Applicant argues that amended independent claims 1 and 20 are patentable because Guen allegedly discloses a pressure indicator positioned above the electrode assembly and fails to disclose or suggest a configuration in which the pressure indicator includes a housing having a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed between the case and a side surface of the electrode assembly. Applicant further argues that neither Kruppe, Miller, nor Koutari cures this alleged deficiency.
The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because they attack Guen individually, whereas the rejection is based upon the combined teachings of Guen and Kruppe. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon a combination of references.
The Examiner agrees that Guen alone does not expressly disclose the amended limitation directed to “the housing includes a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed between the case and a side surface of the electrode assembly.” Accordingly, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 20 has been revised.
Kruppe teaches a pressure indicator for a pressurized system having a housing with first and second body portions configured for mounting through an opening of a pressure vessel. Kruppe further teaches that the housing extends on opposite sides of the mounting structure while accommodating movement of the pressure-responsive member within the housing. Guen teaches the use of a pressure indicator mount through a coupling hole in the cap plate of a battery cell. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the pressure indicator of Guen to incorporate the housing configuration taught by Kruppe because both references are directed to pressure indicators for pressurized systems and the substitution merely represents the predictable use of one known pressure-indicator housing for another while maintaining pressure communication and structural attachment.
Applicant additionally argues that neither reference teaches disposing the pressure indicator between the case and a side surface of the electrode assembly.
The argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Once Kruppe’s housing is incorporated into the battery cell of Guen, the internal portion of the housing necessarily occupies the interior space adjacent the electrode assembly while extending through the coupling hole provided by Guen. The exact positioning of the interior body relative to the electrode assembly constitutes an obvious matter of design choice based upon the available internal volume of the battery and the need to avoid interference with internal battery components while maintaining communication with internal pressure. Selecting the placement of known components within a confined enclosure to obtain predictable operation would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant further argues that the amended configuration reduces the volume of the installation space and therefore is not suggested by the prior art.
The argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Optimization of component placement to reduce occupied space within a battery housing constitutes routine engineering optimization. The mere discovery of an optimum arrangement of a result-effective variable ordinarily does not render the claimed invention nonobvious. The references provide sufficient motivation to employ Kruppe’s housing configuration within Guen’s battery, and arranging the housing adjacent the electrode assembly to fit within the confined battery case would have been an obvious design consideration.
Applicant also argues that Miller and Koutari do not remedy the alleged deficiencies.
The examiner agrees that Miller and Koutari are not relied upon for the newly added limitation. Rather, Miller and Koutari remain relied upon only for the additional limitations recited in the dependent claims. The amended limitation of independent claims 1 and 20 is addressed by the combined teachings of Guen and Kruppe.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Applicant has amended claim 13. The examiner withdraws the previous 35 USC § 112(b) rejections.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10-12, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen in further view of Kruppe (US 20210285567 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guen teaches a battery cell ([0006, secondary battery 100]) comprising:
a case ([0006], case 140);
a cap plate covering the case([0006], cap plate 151);
a pop-up pressure indicator that protrudes out when pressure in the case increases ([0006], pressure indicator pin 124);
a pop-up indicator penetrates through the housing and is exposed externally ([0006], pressure indicator pin 124);
a cap plate that has a coupling hole that communicates with the internal space of the case ([0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141).
Guen fails to teach:
a pop-up pressure indicator that includes a housing for the indicator;
a housing includes a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed between the case and a side surface of the electrode assembly
Kruppe teaches:
a pop-up pressure indicator ([0004], Fig. 1, indicator 100) that includes a housing for the indicator ([0030], Fig. 1, body 102, piston 104);
a housing includes a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed between the case and a side surface of the electrode assembly ([0038]).
Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by including a housing for the pop-up pressure indicator, as taught by Kruppe, because doing so would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, and the mechanism disclosed by Kruppe is sufficiently similar and readily adaptable to use with the device of Guen.
Additionally, Guen teaches a cap plate that has a coupling hole that communicates with the internal space of the case ([0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cap plate with an opening that communicates with the internal space of the case as taught by Guen, to allow for a pop-up indicator to move in response to pressure changes inside the case. This would have been a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions, and yielded predictable results.
Kruppe teaches that an indicator may be threaded integrated or otherwise coupled to a cap ([0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by fixing the housing of the pop-up indicator to the coupling hole on the external side of the cap plate, since Guen provides a cap plate with an opening (Fig. 3, [0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141) and Kruppe teaches that such indicator may be coupled (e.g., threaded or integrated) into a cap ([0038]). Such a modification would have been a simple and predictable use of known attachment techniques to secure the indicator to the structure.
Guen teaches a cap plate including a coupling hole (Fig. 3, [0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141 ). Guen fails to teach that the housing including a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed between the case and the electrode assembly. Kruppe teaches an indicator for use in a pressurized system having first and second body ends and being configured to be coupled to a cap (Claim 11, [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by providing an indicator having a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed within the structure, since Guen provides the coupling hole and Kruppe teaches and indicator having a first and second body portions configured for placement within a pressurized system. Such an arrangement would have inherently resulted from coupling the indicator of Kruppe to the opening of Guen, yielding a predictable configuration.
Regarding claim 3, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Additionally, Guen teaches that the pop-up indicator moves up and down relative to the pressure inside the case ([0068]). Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pop-up indicator of Guen, which moves in response to pressure changes, in the modified device of claim 2, since such movement is inherent to pressure indicators and would have been a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 6, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Guen fails to teach that the housing is fixed to the cap plate or the case. Kruppe teaches that an indicator may be threaded integrated or otherwise coupled to a cap ([0038]). Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by fixing the housing of the pop-up indicator to the cap plate, since Guen provides a cap plate with an opening (Fig. 3, [0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141) and Kruppe teaches that such indicator may be coupled (e.g., threaded or integrated) into a cap ([0038]). Such a modification would have been a simple and predictable use of known attachment techniques to secure the indicator to the structure.
Regarding claim 10, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Additionally, Guen teaches that a width portion of the housing opposing the case has a value greater than the thickness of a portion of housing disposed between the case and the electrode assembly (Fig. 3, electrode assembly 110, case 140, opening 141). Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the width portion of the housing opposing the case would be greater than the thickness of the portion disposed between the case and the electrode assembly, because the housing must be dimensioned to accommodate and avoid interference with the internal components (e.g., the electrode assembly). Such relative sizing is an inherent result of arranging the housing within the confined space of the case while allowing proper operations of the internal components and necessary design considerations.
Regarding claim 11, Guen teaches a battery cell ([0006], Fig. 3, electrode assembly 110) comprising:
a first side of the housing is fixed to the coupling hole (Fig. 3, case 140, 110, [0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141);
a second side of housing disposed between the cap plate and the electrode assembly (Fig. 3, electrode assembly 110, case 140).
Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by having a battery cell, with the first side of the housing fixed to the coupling hold, and the second side of the housing between the cap plate and the electrode assembly. It is an inherent design choice of arranging the housing to allow for proper operations of the internal components, which would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Guen teaches a battery cell ([0006, secondary battery 100]) comprising:
a case ([0006], case 140);
a cap plate covering the case([0006], cap plate 151);
a pop-up pressure indicator that protrudes out when pressure in the case increases ([0006], pressure indicator pin 124);
a pop-up indicator penetrates through the housing and is exposed externally ([0006], pressure indicator pin 124);
a cap plate that has a coupling hole that communicates with the internal space of the case ([0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141).
Guen fails to teach:
a pop-up pressure indicator that includes a housing for the indicator;
a housing includes a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed between the case and a side surface of the electrode assembly
Kruppe teaches:
a pop-up pressure indicator ([0004], Fig. 1, indicator 100) that includes a housing for the indicator ([0030], Fig. 1, body 102, piston 104);
a housing includes a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed between the case and a side surface of the electrode assembly ([0038]).
Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by including a housing for the pop-up pressure indicator, as taught by Kruppe, because doing so would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, and the mechanism disclosed by Kruppe is sufficiently similar and readily adaptable to use with the device of Guen.
Additionally, Guen teaches a cap plate that has a coupling hole that communicates with the internal space of the case ([0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cap plate with an opening that communicates with the internal space of the case as taught by Guen, to allow for a pop-up indicator to move in response to pressure changes inside the case. This would have been a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions, and yielded predictable results.
Kruppe teaches that an indicator may be threaded integrated or otherwise coupled to a cap ([0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by fixing the housing of the pop-up indicator to the coupling hole on the external side of the cap plate, since Guen provides a cap plate with an opening (Fig. 3, [0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141) and Kruppe teaches that such indicator may be coupled (e.g., threaded or integrated) into a cap ([0038]). Such a modification would have been a simple and predictable use of known attachment techniques to secure the indicator to the structure.
Guen teaches a cap plate including a coupling hole (Fig. 3, [0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141 ). Guen fails to teach that the housing including a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed between the case and the electrode assembly. Kruppe teaches an indicator for use in a pressurized system having first and second body ends and being configured to be coupled to a cap (Claim 11, [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by providing an indicator having a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed within the structure, since Guen provides the coupling hole and Kruppe teaches and indicator having a first and second body portions configured for placement within a pressurized system. Such an arrangement would have inherently resulted from coupling the indicator of Kruppe to the opening of Guen, yielding a predictable configuration.
Regarding claim 14, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Additionally, Guen teaches a pop-up pressure indicator (Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124) that includes:
A pressure transmission part coupled to the pop-up indicator ([0008], Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124);
Pressure transmission part that transmits pressure in the case to the pop-up indicator ([0008], Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124).
Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe to have a pressure transmission part that is coupled to the pop-up indicator to transmit the pressure inside the case, in order to ensure that internal pressure changes are effectively communicated to the indicator for accurate and reliable operation, which would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Additionally, Guen teaches a deformation part (Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124) that includes:
configured to deform depending on changes in pressure in the case ([0008], Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124);
configured to move the pop-up indicator ([0008], Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124);
that is fixed to each of the housing and the pop-up indicator 9 ([0007], Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124).
Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe to have a deformation part that changes in response to internal pressure of the case, moves the pop-up indicator in response, and is fixed to the housing and the pop-up indicator, since deformable members are used to respond to pressure changes and convert them into mechanical movement, thereby enabling actuation of the indicator in a predictable manner.
Regarding claim 16, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Guen fails to teach a pressure transmission part including a moveable part fixed to the pop-up indicator, configured to move in the housing depending on changes in pressure in the case, and configured to slide in the housing. However, Kruppe teaches a pressure transmission part including a moveable part fixed to the pop-up indicator ([0030-0031], piston 104, body 102), configured to move in the housing depending on changes in pressure in the case (Abstract, piston 104, body 102), and configured to slide in the housing depending on changes in pressure (Abstract. piston 104, body 102). Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by providing a pressure transmission part including a movable part fixed to the pop-up indicator that slides within a housing, since Guen already discloses a movable indicator ([0068], pressure indicator pin 124) responsive to pressure ([0068]) and Kruppe provides a known housing structure with sliding components. Such a modification would have been a predictable use of known mechanical structures to control movement of the indicator in response to pressure changes.
Regarding claim 17, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Guen fails to teach a housing that includes a stopper to limit movement of pressure transmission part. However, Kruppe teaches a pop-up pressure indicator having a housing with structural features that limit the movement of the moveable part ([0032], stop 118), which inherently functions as a stopper. Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by including a stopper in the housing to limit the movement of the pressure transmission part, since Kruppe demonstrates a known mechanism in which movement is inherently constrained. Such a modification would have been predictable use of known mechanical features to prevent over-travel of the moveable component.
Regarding claim 20, Guen teaches a battery device ([0006], secondary battery 100, Fig. 6, battery module 10) comprising:
A plurality of battery cells ([0071], Fig. 6, battery module 10)
A device housing for battery cells ([0006])
One battery cell ([0006], secondary battery 100) of the plurality includes:
A case for an electrode assembly ([0006], case 140)
A cap plate covering the case ([0006], cap plate 151)
A pop-up indicator protruding out when pressure in the case increases ([0006], pressure indicator pin 124)
a pop-up indicator penetrates through the housing and is exposed externally ([0006], pressure indicator pin 124);
a cap plate that has a coupling hole that communicates with the internal space of the case ([0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141).
Guen fails to teach:
a pop-up pressure indicator that includes a housing for the indicator;
a housing includes a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed between the case and a side surface of the electrode assembly
Kruppe teaches:
a pop-up pressure indicator ([0004], Fig. 1, indicator 100) that includes a housing for the indicator ([0030], Fig. 1, body 102, piston 104);
a housing includes a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed between the case and a side surface of the electrode assembly ([0038]).
Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by including a housing for the pop-up pressure indicator, as taught by Kruppe, because doing so would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, and the mechanism disclosed by Kruppe is sufficiently similar and readily adaptable to use with the device of Guen.
Additionally, Guen teaches a cap plate that has a coupling hole that communicates with the internal space of the case ([0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cap plate with an opening that communicates with the internal space of the case as taught by Guen, to allow for a pop-up indicator to move in response to pressure changes inside the case. This would have been a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions, and yielded predictable results.
Kruppe teaches that an indicator may be threaded integrated or otherwise coupled to a cap ([0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by fixing the housing of the pop-up indicator to the coupling hole on the external side of the cap plate, since Guen provides a cap plate with an opening (Fig. 3, [0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141) and Kruppe teaches that such indicator may be coupled (e.g., threaded or integrated) into a cap ([0038]). Such a modification would have been a simple and predictable use of known attachment techniques to secure the indicator to the structure.
Guen teaches a cap plate including a coupling hole (Fig. 3, [0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141 ). Guen fails to teach that the housing including a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed between the case and the electrode assembly. Kruppe teaches an indicator for use in a pressurized system having first and second body ends and being configured to be coupled to a cap (Claim 11, [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by providing an indicator having a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed within the structure, since Guen provides the coupling hole and Kruppe teaches and indicator having a first and second body portions configured for placement within a pressurized system. Such an arrangement would have inherently resulted from coupling the indicator of Kruppe to the opening of Guen, yielding a predictable configuration.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen and Kruppe, as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Miller (US 20040025581 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Guen fails to teach a pop-up indicator partitioned into regions to indicate pressure inside. Miller teaches a pop-up indicator partitioned into regions to indicate pressure inside ([0023], color coding). Guen and Miller are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pop-up pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Miller to partition the regions of the pop-up indicator into regions corresponding to different pressure levels a predictable variation of known pressure indicators, to provide graded or incremental feedback, yielding predictable results of improved monitoring.
Regarding claim 5, Guen and Miller teach all limitations of claim 4, as stated above. Guen fails to teach a pop-up indicator with regions that are visually distinct. Miller teaches a pop-up indicator with regions that are visually distinct ([0023], [0038], green color band 80, yellow color band 100, red color band 90). Guen and Miller are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pop-up pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Miller to make the partitions of the pop-up indictor visually distinct and corresponding to different pressure thresholds to allow a user to distinguish between normal, elevated, and critical pressure conditions, thereby enhancing safety and enabling earlier intervention, yielding predictable results of improved monitoring.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen and Kruppe, as applied to claims 14 and 17 above, in further view of Koutari et al. (US 20200136110 A1), herein after Koutari.
Regarding claim 18, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 17, as stated above. Guen teaches if the internal pressure of the battery is increased the membrane is brought into close contact with the bottom surface of the terminal region ([0067], membrane 123, terminal region 122]). However, Guen fails to teach a pressure transmission part including a burstable slide part the breaks when in contact with a stopper. Koutari teaches that a thin-welled portion can be made to break when the internal pressure exceeds a predetermined threshold ([0036], thin wall portion 12). Guen and Koutari are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both relate to pressure-actuated components in batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Koutari to include a burstable slide part in the pressure transmission part, such that the part breaks upon contact with a stopper when the internal pressure exceeds a set value. This combination would have been a predictable use of known techniques to release gas at excessive pressure to ensure safe operation.
Regarding claim 19, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Guen teaches that when pressure inside the case is at or higher than certain pressure gases are released ([0067], membrane 123, terminal region 122]). However, Guen fails to teach that a pressure transmission part is broken when pressure in the case is at or higher than certain pressure. Koutari teaches that a pressure transmission part is broken when pressure in the case is at or higher than certain pressure ([0036], thin wall portion 12). Guen and Koutari are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both relate to pressure-actuated components in batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Koutari to include a burstable portion of the pressure transmission part, such that it breaks when the internal pressure exceeds a set value and releases gas through the housing. Such a modification would have been a predictable and routine adaptations to ensure controlled pressure relief.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 12, neither Guen or Kruppe, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests a housing having a second body connected to a first body and inclined with respect to the first body. While Guen discloses a cap plate and Kruppe teaches an indicator with a housing that may be coupled to a cap, neither reference discloses or suggests an inclined housing configuration as claimed. Accordingly, this limitation appears to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 13, neither Guen nor Kruppe, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests a configuration in which components are connected by a guide surface including a curved surface, and wherein the pop-up indicator includes a bendable material. The prior art fails to disclose or suggest this specific structural relationship and material characteristic. Furthermore, claim 13 depends from claim 12 and includes all of its allowable limitations, and therefore also appears to be allowable for at least this additional reason.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571)431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights