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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 20220118854 A1, “Davis”) in view of Berdichevsky et al. (US 7433794 B1, “Berdichevsky”) and Smith et al. (US 11377089 B1, “Smith”).
The applied reference (US 20220118854 A1, “Davis”) has a common Applicant & joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 18, Davis discloses an electrified vehicle (see [0021] “electric vehicles”) comprising: a chassis (see abstract); an energy storage system coupled to the chassis, the energy storage system including a battery arranged within a battery housing (see [0033] “battery 23” & see abstract “energy storage device”); an electric actuator (see [0068] “electric actuator” & see FIG. 6 “254”; see [0033] “battery 23”). Davis does not explicitly disclose an electric actuator arranged within to the battery housing nor disclose a panel of the battery housing to provide an opening into an internal volume of the battery housing; or actuate the electric actuator to open a port in the battery housing.
Berdichevsky teaches a shunt in a battery housing (see FIG. 8 “valve membrane or shunt 34” in “14 battery module”; see col 4 par 3 “battery module 14”; & see P10 col 9 par 3 “valve membrane or shunt 34” & “In the event thermal runaway does affect one cell 18 within the ESS 12, heat and fumes may be vented from the ESS enclosure 20 via a valve membrane or shunt 34”).
Davis and Berdichevsky are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely electric vehicle (see Berdichevsky P6 col 1 par 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “34” as suggested by Berdichevsky (see FIG. 8) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so allows the heat and fumes to be vented from the enclosure, as suggested by Berdichevsky (see P10 col 9 par 3) and further doing so ensures the safety of the vehicle (see P7 col 4 par 2).
Davis discloses and a control system in communication with the energy storage system and the electrical actuator (see FIG. 5 “control system” & see [0070] describes “battery 23” & “control system” & see [0027]), the control system being configured to detect an onset of a thermal event in the energy storage system (see [0059] “thermal management system”).
Regarding claim 15 and claim 18, Davis discloses the above limitations, but does not explicitly disclose and provide an indication to supply fluid into the internal volume of the battery housing.
Berdichevsky teaches “mitigating the propagation of a thermal runaway cell by having a cooling mechanism that is continuously capable of either adding heat or removing heat in a cooling manner from an energy storage system” (see P6 col 2 par 6) & “34 valve membrane or shunt” & “battery module 14”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate cooling mechanism, as suggested by Berdichevsky (see P6 col 2 par 6) into the electrified vehicle of Davis, because doing so would mitigate the propagation of a thermal runaway cell, as suggested by Berdichevsky (see P6 col 2 par 6).
Regarding claim 2, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the control system is configured to actuate, via the electric actuator (see [0068] “electric actuator” & see FIG. 6 “254”). Davis does not explicitly disclose the panel of the battery housing to provide the opening into the internal volume of the battery housing.
Berdichevsky teaches open a valve membrane or shunt to vent heat and fumes (see FIG. 8 “valve membrane or shunt 34” in “14 battery module”; see col 4 par 3 “battery module 14”; & see P10 col 9 par 3 “valve membrane or shunt 34” & “In the event thermal runaway does affect one cell 18 within the ESS 12, heat and fumes may be vented from the ESS enclosure 20 via a valve membrane or shunt 34”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “34 valve membrane or shunt” into the electrified vehicle of Davis because a skilled artisan would recognize doing so vents heat and fumes from the enclosure as suggested by Berdichevsky (see P10 col 9 par 3) and further doing so prevents thermal runaway from damaging the vehicle.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 3, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 20220118854 A1, “Davis”) in view of Berdichevsky et al. (US 7433794 B1, “Berdichevsky”) and Smith et al. (US 11377089 B1, “Smith”) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Rawlinson et al. (US 9054402 B1, “Rawlinson”).
Regarding claim 3, claim 8 and claim 17, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 2 and claim 15. Davis does not explicitly disclose wherein the panel is an outer panel of the battery housing nor wherein the panel is arranged externally to the battery housing.
Rawlinson teaches panel on outside of battery housing (see abstract “lower battery pack enclosure panel”; see P11 col 4 par 3 “as the lower panel 203 and the conduits within the strike region deform, energy is absorbed. If sufficient energy is absorbed through this process, damage to the batteries 205 within the strike region can be significantly limited, thereby potentially averting a thermal runaway event” & see FIG. 13 describes “203” is on the outside of “205 batteries”).
Davis and Rawlinson are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely electric vehicles (see Rawlinson Title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “lower panel 203” as suggested by Rawlinson (see FIG. 13) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so averts a thermal runaway event as suggested by Rawlinson (see P11 col 4 par 3) and a skilled artisan would recognize further doing so improves the safety of the vehicle.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 20220118854 A1, “Davis”) in view of Berdichevsky et al. (US 7433794 B1, “Berdichevsky”), Smith et al. (US 11377089 B1, “Smith”) and Rawlinson et al. (US 9054402 B1, “Rawlinson”) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Goldman et al. (US 9899652 B2, “Goldman”).
Regarding claim 4, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 3 and discloses “electric actuators” (see [0068]). Davis does not explicitly disclose wherein the panel is actuated by the electric actuator between a closed position and an open position.
Goldman teaches open & closed position (see P17 col 7 par 2 “gasket 704 can form a seal between the vent cap and a remainder of the vent” & “frangible pin 710 causes the vent cap to hold its current position” & “fuse pin and the plunger cap resist liquid ingress from the outside and open a port in the container wall in response to an external event that may cause leakage on the inside” & see P15 col 3 par 6 “self-activating valve” & “maximize safety”).
Davis and Goldman are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely electric vehicles (see P14 col 1 par 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate self-activating valve, gasket, & frangible pin as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6 & P17 col 7 par 2) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so maximizes the safety of the vehicle as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6).
Regarding claim 5, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein when the panel is in the closed position, the battery housing forms a sealed enclosure around the battery.
Goldman teaches sealed enclosure (see P16 col 5 par 3 “current position of the valve member maintains the port sealed (by the O-ring 313). The valve 200 therefore resists ingress of liquid from the outside into an enclosure” & see P15 col 3 par 6 “self-activating valve” & “maximize safety”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “self-activating valve” as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so maximizes the safety of the battery and prevents ingress of liquid into an enclosure as suggested by Goldman (see P16 col 5 par 3).
Regarding claim 6, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein when the panel is in the open position, the opening is provided into the internal volume of the battery housing.
Goldman teaches open valve (see P16 col 5 par 7 “valve 200 after the valve has self-activated” & “O-ring 313 no longer seals between the valve member and the body” & “open valve” & see P15 col 3 par 6 “self-activating valve” & “maximize safety”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “self-activating valve” as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so doing so allows liquid to pass through the open valve, as suggested by Goldman (see P16 col 5 par 7) and further doing so maximizes safety of the vehicle as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6).
Claims 7, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 20220118854 A1, “Davis”) in view of Berdichevsky et al. (US 7433794 B1, “Berdichevsky”) and Smith et al. (US 11377089 B1, “Smith”) as applied to claims 2, 15 and 18 above, and further in view of Goldman et al. (US 9899652 B2, “Goldman”).
Regarding claim 7, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the opening provides a flow path for fluid to be provided into the internal volume of the battery housing.
Goldman teaches flow path and opening (see P17 col 8 par 8 & FIG 13 “valve” & “liquid from the internal flooding is entering the valve through an opening 1300, as schematically illustrated by flow arrows 1302” & see P15 col 3 par 6 “self-activating valve” & “maximize safety”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “self-activating valve” as suggested by Goldman (see P17 col 8 par 8 & P15 col 3 par 6) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so allows liquid to enter the valve from internal flooding as suggested by Goldman (see P17 col 8 par 8) and doing so maximizes the safety of the vehicle as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6).
Regarding claim 16, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the panel is actuated by the electric actuator between a closed position and an open position, wherein when the panel is in the closed position, the battery housing forms a sealed enclosure around the battery, and wherein when the panel is in the open position, the opening is provided into the internal volume of the battery housing.
Goldman teaches open & closed position (see P17 col 7 par 2 “gasket 704 can form a seal between the vent cap and a remainder of the vent” & “frangible pin 710 causes the vent cap to hold its current position” & “fuse pin and the plunger cap resist liquid ingress from the outside and open a port in the container wall in response to an external event that may cause leakage on the inside” & see P15 col 3 par 6 “self-activating valve” & “maximize safety”). Goldman teaches sealed enclosure (see P16 col 5 par 3 “current position of the valve member maintains the port sealed (by the O-ring 313). The valve 200 therefore resists ingress of liquid from the outside into an enclosure”). Goldman teaches open valve (see P16 col 5 par 7 “valve 200 after the valve has self-activated” & “O-ring 313 no longer seals between the valve member and the body” & “open valve” & see P17 col 8 par 8).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “self-activating valve” as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so doing so allows liquid from internal flooding to pass through the open valve, as suggested by Goldman (see P17 col 8 par 8 & FIG. 13), doing so “resists ingress of liquid from the outside into an enclosure” as suggested by Goldman (see P16 col 5 par 3), and further doing so maximizes safety of the vehicle as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6).
Regarding claim 20, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the electric actuator includes a sharpened distal end that penetrates through the battery housing to form the port in the battery housing.
Goldman teaches “fuse pin 608” & “fuse pin and the plunger cap open a port in the container wall in response to a liquid contacting the drain on the inside” (see P16 col 6 par 5 and par 6). Goldman teaches “self-activating valve” & “maximize safety” (see P15 col 3 par 6).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “self-activating valve” as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6) & “fuse pin” as suggested by Goldman (see P16 col 6 par 5&6) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so allows a liquid in the interior to be drained, as suggested by Goldman (see P16 col 6 par 6) and further doing so improves the safety of the vehicle as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 20220118854 A1, “Davis”) in view of Berdichevsky et al. (US 7433794 B1, “Berdichevsky”), Smith et al. (US 11377089 B1, “Smith”) and Rawlinson et al. (US 9054402 B1, “Rawlinson”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Goldman et al. (US 9899652 B2, “Goldman”) and Hermann et al. (US 9941555 B2, “Hermann”).
Regarding claim 9, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the port is opened in response to the electric actuator actuating the panel, and wherein the port provides the opening into the internal volume of the battery housing.
Goldman teaches opening a valve (see P15 col 4 par 4 “if the cooling system should leak liquid coolant (e.g., due to a rupture or other malfunction) the coolant would collect inside the container and the valve should then open itself to allow (at least part of) the coolant to escape outside the battery system”). Goldman teaches “self-activating valve” & “maximize safety” (see P15 col 3 par 6).
Hermann teaches port in the housing of the battery (see FIG. 1 “vent 110” & “port 115” & “enclosure 105”; see P6 col 6 par 4 “fill port 115 is designed to allow unidirectional ingress of water into enclosure 105 while inhibiting egress of gases from enclosure 105” & “the valve opening permits water to flow into enclosure 105”). Hermann teaches “water cools any hot spots quickly suspends any potential or actual runaway thermal events” (see P7 col 8 par 1).
Davis and Hermann are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely electric vehicle (see Hermann Title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “fill port” as suggested by Hermann (see FIG. 1 & P6 col 6 par 4) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so allows “unidirectional ingress of water into the enclosure” (see P6 col 6 par 4) & “water cools any hot spots and quickly suspends any potential or actual runaway thermal events” (see P7 col 8 par 1). It would have been obvious to incorporate self-activating valve as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so improves the safety as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6).
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 20220118854 A1, “Davis”) in view of Berdichevsky et al. (US 7433794 B1, “Berdichevsky”) and Smith et al. (US 11377089 B1, “Smith”) as applied to claim 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Hermann et al. (US 9941555 B2, “Hermann”).
Regarding claim 10, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control system is configured to actuate the electric actuator to open the port in the battery housing.
Hermann teaches FIG. 1 “vent 110” & “port 115” & “enclosure 105” & see P6 col 6 par 4 “fill port 115” & “valve opening permits water to flow into enclosure 105” & see P7 col 8 par 1 “water cools any hot spots and “quickly suspends any potential or actual runaway thermal events”.
Berdichevsky teaches “valve membrane or shunt 34” (see FIG. 8 & see P10 col 9 par 3) & teaches “temperature control” & “vehicle management system 36” & “monitors, controls and coordinates various systems in the electric vehicle” (see P10 col 9 par 4) & see P10 col 10 par 1 “take action due to faults of changing voltage, temperature and current conditions as well as disconnected outputs”. Berdichevsky teaches “mitigation of propagation of thermal runaway” (see Title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “vehicle management system” as suggested by Berdichevsky (see P10 col 9 par 4) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so mitigates thermal runaway as suggested by Berdichevsky (see Title). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “port” as suggested by Hermann (see FIG. 1 & P6 col 6 par 4) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so allows “unidirectional ingress of water into the enclosure” as suggested by Hermann (see P6 col 6 par 4) and further doing so improves the safety of the vehicle by allowing water to cool any hot spots and “quickly suspends any potential or actual runaway thermal events” as suggested by Hermann (see P7 col 8 par 1).
Regarding claim 11 and claim 19, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 10 and claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein actuating the electric actuator between a first position and a second position selectively opens the port to provide the opening into the internal volume of the battery housing nor wherein actuating the electric actuator between a first position and a second position selectively opens the port to provide an opening into an internal volume of the battery housing.
Berdichevsky teaches “valve membrane or shunt 34” (see FIG. 8 & P10 col 9 par 3) & “vehicle management system 36” (see P10 col 9 par 4).
Hermann teaches “port 115” in FIG. 1 & P6 col 6 par 4 describes “port 115 designed to allow unidirectional ingress of water into enclosure 105 while inhibiting egress of gasses from enclosure 105” & see P7 col 7 par 7 “when it is desired to provide water inside the enclosure 105, port 125 is accessed” & in P6 col 6 par 2 “valve opening permits water to flow into enclosure 105” & teaches “hot gas release vents may open wider in response to excessive pressure and/or heat” & “controlling flow of fluids (e.g., water or gas or the like)”. Hermann teaches “as water flows into enclosure 105, some of the internal gasses are displaced and exit from vent 110” in P7 col 8 par 1. Hermann teaches “water cools any hot spots and “quickly suspends any potential or actual runaway thermal events” (see P7 col 8 par 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate port (see P7 col 7 par 7) & vent as suggested by Hermann (see P7 col 8 par 1) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so allows “hot gas release vents to open wider in response to excessive pressure and/or heat” (see P6 col 6 par 2) and further doing so allows water to cool any hot spots and “quickly suspends any potential or actual runaway thermal events” (see P7 col 8 par 1).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 20220118854 A1, “Davis”) in view of Berdichevsky et al. (US 7433794 B1, “Berdichevsky”) and Smith et al. (US 11377089 B1, “Smith”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goldman et al. (US 9899652 B2, “Goldman”).
Regarding claim 12, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the electric actuator includes a sharpened distal end that penetrates through the battery housing to form the port in the battery housing.
Goldman teaches “fuse pin 608” & “fuse pin and the plunger cap open a port in the container wall in response to a liquid contacting the drain on the inside” (see P16 col 6 par 5 and par 6). Goldman teaches “self-activating valve” & “maximize safety” (see P15 col 3 par 6).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “self-activating valve” as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6) & “fuse pin” as suggested by Goldman (see P16 col 6 par 5&6) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so allows a liquid in the interior to be drained, as suggested by Goldman (see P16 col 6 par 6) and further doing so improves the safety of the vehicle as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6).
Regarding claim 13, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery housing includes a portion that is structurally weakened.
Goldman teaches membrane 1506 which can be punctured which reads on structurally weakened (see FIG. 2 describes “202 battery enclosure” which reads on battery housing & see FIG. 15A describes “1506” & see P18 col 9 par 4 “this motion causes the hollow needle to puncture the membrane 1506 such that the port 1508 is opened” & see P15 col 3 par 6 “self-activating valve” & “maximize safety”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to incorporate membrane 1506 as suggested by Goldman (see FIG. 15A & P18 col 9 par 4) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so allows “the hollow needle to puncture the membrane 1506 such that the port 1508 is opened” as suggested by Goldman (see P18 col 9 par 4) & doing so further “allows passage of fluid through” (see P18 col 9 par 4). A skilled artisan would recognize incorporating “self-activating valve” as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6) to improve the safety of the vehicle (see Goldman P15 col 3 par 6).
Regarding claim 14, Davis discloses the electrified vehicle of claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the electric actuator penetrates through the portion of the battery housing to form the port.
Goldman teaches membrane 1506 (see FIG. 2 describes “202 battery enclosure” which reads on battery housing & see FIG. 15A describes “1506” & see P18 col 9 par 4 “this motion causes the hollow needle to puncture the membrane 1506 such that the port 1508 is opened”). Goldman teaches “the pierced membrane allows passage of fluid through the device” (see P18 col 9 par 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to incorporate membrane 1506 as suggested by Goldman (see FIG. 15A & P18 col 9 par 4) into the electrified vehicle of Davis because doing so allows “the hollow needle to puncture the membrane 1506 such that the port 1508 is opened” as suggested by Goldman (see P18 col 9 par 4) & doing so further “allows passage of fluid through” (see P18 col 9 par 4). A skilled artisan would recognize incorporating “self-activating valve” as suggested by Goldman (see P15 col 3 par 6) to improve the safety of the vehicle (see Goldman P15 col 3 par 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see P9-P10, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar et al. (US 20130193918 A1) in view of Berdichevsky et al. (US 7433794 B1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 20220118854 A1, “Davis”) in view of Berdichevsky et al. (US 7433794 B1, “Berdichevsky”) and Smith et al. (US 11377089 B1, “Smith”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 09/10/2026
Prosecution Insights