CTNF 18/551,884 CTNF 82927 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed September 22, 2023 and March 19, 2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Drawings The drawings received September 22, 2023 are acceptable. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “paralepidid” (p3, line 30; p8, line 21). (Perhaps ‘parallelepiped’ was meant instead.) Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: not having the proper indefinite article associated with the preamble; “Battery pack” should be “A battery pack’ . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 2-12 and 14-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: not having the appropriate definite article before the preamble; “Battery pack” should be ‘The battery pack” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “the battery connection plates” (line 5) instead of ‘the plurality of battery connection plates’ (given antecedent basis in line 4) . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “the battery connection plates” (line 4) instead of ‘the plurality of battery connection plates’ (given antecedent basis in line 4) . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “paralepidid” (line 2). (Perhaps ‘parallelepiped’ was meant instead.) Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: having an extra space between “-“ and “side” (line 2) . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “the battery connection plates” (line 2) instead of ‘the plurality of battery connection plates’ (given antecedent basis in claim 1, line 4) . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “the battery connection plates” (line 2) instead of ‘the plurality of battery connection plates’ (given antecedent basis in claim 1, line 4) . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “the battery connection plates” (line 2) instead of ‘the plurality of battery connection plates’ (given antecedent basis in claim 1, line 4) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “the transverse support devices” (line 3) instead of ‘the plurality of transverse support devices’ (given antecedent basis in line claim 1, lines 1-2). 07-29-01 AIA Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “the transverse support devices” (lines 3-4) instead of ‘the plurality of transverse support devices’ (given antecedent basis in line claim 1, lines 1-2) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “a conductive surface” referring ack to “the battery connection plates” (line 5). It is unclear which of the battery connection plates (plural) has “a conductive surface” (singular) – is it meant to apply to only one connection plate or each connection plate? Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite. Since claims 2-12 and 14-21 are dependent upon claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transverse support” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (Note: Antecedent basis is given for “a plurality of transverse support devices” (lines 1-2). Since claims 2-12 and 14-21 are dependent upon claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason. Claim 1 recites “the support frame” (line 6). However, there are a plurality of support frames (as each transverse support device comprises a support frame, and a plurality of transverse support devices exists). Thus, it is unclear what “the support frame” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Since claims 2-12 and 14-21 are dependent upon claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason. Claim 1 recites “the transverse support device” (line 7). However, antecedent basis is given for “a plurality of transverse support devices” (lines 1-2). It is unclear what the transverse support device refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Since claims 2-12 and 14-21 are dependent upon claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason. Claim 3 recites “the support frame” (lines 3-4; two times). However, there are a plurality of support frames (as each transverse support device comprises a support frame, and a plurality of transverse support devices exists) (see claim 1, lines 1-4). Thus, it is unclear what “the support frame” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Claim 4 recites “the support frame” (lines 2-3; two times). However, there are a plurality of support frames (as each transverse support device comprises a support frame, and a plurality of transverse support devices exists) (see claim 1, lines 1-4). Thus, it is unclear what “the support frame” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Claim 5 recites “the support frame” (line 3). However, there are a plurality of support frames (as each transverse support device comprises a support frame, and a plurality of transverse support devices exists) (see claim 1, lines 1-4). Thus, it is unclear what “the support frame” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Since claim 6 is dependent upon claim 5, it is rejected for the same reason. Claim 5 recites “the fluid port” (line 3) (singular); however “at least one fluid port” (line 2) (singular or plural) is given antecedent basis. Thus, “the fluid port” is unclear and indefinite. Since claim 6 is dependent upon claim 5, it is rejected for the same reason. Claim 5 recites “the transverse support device” (line 2) (singular) and “two spaced apart transverse support devices” (lines 4-5). Antecedent basis is given for “a plurality of transverse support devices” (claim 1, lines 1-2). Accordingly, it is unclear what “the transverse support device” refers to, and how “two spaced apart transverse support devices” relates to the plurality of transverse support devices. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite. Since claim 6 is dependent upon claim 5, it is rejected for the same reason. Claim 7 recites “the support frame” (line 3). However, there are a plurality of support frames (as each transverse support device comprises a support frame, and a plurality of transverse support devices exists) (see claim 1, lines 1-4). Thus, it is unclear what “the support frame” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Claim 7 recites “two channels” (line 2). It is unsure if these are related to the “at least one channel” (claim 1, line 7), and if so, how. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite. Claim 7 recites “the transverse support device” (line 3) (singular). Antecedent basis is given for “a plurality of transverse support devices” (claim 1, lines 1-2). Accordingly, it is unclear what “the transverse support device” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Claim 8 recites “the support frame” (lines 2-3; two times). However, there are a plurality of support frames (as each transverse support device comprises a support frame, and a plurality of transverse support devices exists) (see claim 1, lines 1-4). Thus, it is unclear what “the support frame” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Claim 8 recites “the transverse support device” (lines 3-4) (singular). Antecedent basis is given for “a plurality of transverse support devices” (claim 1, lines 1-2). Accordingly, it is unclear what “the transverse support device” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Claim 9 recites “the support frame” (line 2). However, there are a plurality of support frames (as each transverse support device comprises a support frame, and a plurality of transverse support devices exists) (see claim 1, lines 1-4). Thus, it is unclear what “the support frame” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Claim 10 recites “the support frame” (line 2). However, there are a plurality of support frames (as each transverse support device comprises a support frame, and a plurality of transverse support devices exists) (see claim 1, lines 1-4). Thus, it is unclear what “the support frame” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Since claims 11-12 are dependent upon claim 10, they are rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). (The phrase “such as” is found multiple times in claim 12 (line 3, line 5, line 6, line 9, line 10; six times).) Claim 12 recites many acronyms without first identifying what the acronyms refer to (for non-limiting example PA6T, PBT, PTT; numerous exist in the claims and each lead to the indefiniteness issue). Accordingly, the claims are unclear and indefinite. Claim 14 recites “the transverse support device” (line 2) (singular). Antecedent basis is given for “a plurality of transverse support devices” (claim 1, lines 1-2). Accordingly, it is unclear what “the transverse support device” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Claim 15 recites “the support frame” (lines 2-3; two times). However, there are a plurality of support frames (as each transverse support device comprises a support frame, and a plurality of transverse support devices exists) (see claim 1, lines 1-4). Thus, it is unclear what “the support frame” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Claim 15 recites “battery connection plates” (line 4) (new antecedent basis). However, claim 1, line 4 provides antecedent basis for “a plurality of battery connection plates.” It is unclear if the battery connection plates of claim 15 are related to those o claim 1, or if they are different. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite. Claim 16 recites the limitation "side-to- side conductor elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (Note: Antecedent basis is given in claim 15; however, claim 16 is dependent upon claim 1.) Claim 19 recites “the support frame” (line 2). However, there are a plurality of support frames (as each transverse support device comprises a support frame, and a plurality of transverse support devices exists) (see claim 1, lines 1-4). Thus, it is unclear what “the support frame” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Claim 20 recites “the transverse support device” (line 6) (singular). Antecedent basis is given for “a plurality of transverse support devices” (claim 1, lines 1-2). Accordingly, it is unclear what “the transverse support device” refers to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Since claim 21 is dependent upon claim 20, it is rejected for the same reason. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ generally ” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ generally ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear the metes and bounds as to what constitutes being generally elongated rectangular shape (what degree must be met). Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite. Since claim 21 is dependent upon claim 22, it is rejected for the seam reason . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14, 16-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0205045 (Schroder et al.) . As to claim 1, Schroder et al. teach a battery pack structural assembly (fig. 1) comprising a plurality of transverse support devices (intermediate wall [13]) between which one or more groups of stacked battery cells [5] may be mounted and electrically interconnected (para 0103), each transverse support device (intermediate wall [13]) comprising a support frame and a plurality of battery connection plates mounted on the support frame (having front side [20] and rear side [28]; also having left and right portions around middle part [14] (figs. 2a, 2b)), the battery connection plates having a conductive surface (separating layer [38]) (at the very least thermally conductive, as it is part of the cooling channel (para 0133); see also fig. 2a, 2c) facing an outer side of the transverse support, the support frame comprising chambers (channels [31a, 31b] of channel structure [32]) formed therein interconnected fluidically to form at least one channel for circulation of cooling fluid through the transverse support device, the chambers being covered by the battery connection plates (para 0084, 0087; fig. 2c). As to claim 2, Schroder et al. teach adjacent chambers of said at least one channel are separated by chamber separation walls comprising orifices (left and right sides of figs. 2a, 2b, separated by middle part [14] with channel pieces [22, 24]). As to claim 4, Schroder et al. teach the chambers (left and right sides of the cooling areas [30] around the middle part [14]) are disposed on a first side of the support frame and an opposite second side of the support frame, said chambers on both said first and second sides being covered by the battery connection plates (separating layer [38]) (figs. 2a, 2c; para 0084, 0087). As to claim 5, Schroder et al. teach the transverse support device comprises at least one fluid port on each of a first end and a second end of the support frame (channel pieces [22, 24] (fig. 2a), the fluid port configured for coupling to a fluid interconnection shaft mounted between and fluidically interconnecting two spaced apart transverse support devices (interconnection indicated by coolant inlet [11] and coolant outlet [12]) connected to the housing and thus to two spaced apart transverse support devices; see fig. 5 as applied to a stack of intermediate walls [13]; para 0071). As to claim 7, Schroder et al. teach the support frame comprises a central separation wall (middle part [14]) separating two channels (left and right portions), each for circulation of cooling fluid through the transverse support device (figs. 2a, 2b). As to claim 8, Schroder et al. teach the support frame comprises fixing sockets arranged on a peripheral of the support frame for securing walls of a casing (housing [2]) to the transverse support device (the manner in which the merlons [17] and recesses [18] stack; multiple of the structures of figs. 2b as shown to be stacked in fig. 5). As to claim 9, Schroder et al. teach the support frame is of made of an integrally formed body (appears to be a one piece construction; figs 2a, 2b). As to claim 10, Schroder et al. teach the support frame is of made of a polymer, optionally incorporating a reinforcement material (intermediate wall made of plastic, such as PA6T/6I) (para 0032). As to claim 11 and claim 12, Schroder et al. teach that the polymer is PA6T/6I (para 0032), thus constituting a thermoplastic resin (as required by claim 11), specifically, one of the thermoplastics set forth in claim 12 (aliphatic polyamides, such as polyamide 66, polyamide 6, polyamide 11, polyamide 11, polyamide 12, polyamide 610, polyamide 66/610, polyamide 6/12, polyamide 666; semi-aromatic polyamides, such as polyamides having all or a portion of their diacid units deriving from terephthalate and/or iso-phthalate, such as PA6T, polyamide 6IT, PA6T/66, PA6T/DT and PA6T/6I;polyolefins, such as polypropylene; polyesters, such as poly(butylene terephthalate), poly(ethylene terephthalate); copolyetheresters, such as those having hard segments comprised of PBT, PET and/or PTT and soft segments comprised of poly(C2-4-alkylene oxide)diols; polyphenylene sulfide (PPS);polyacetal; liquid-crystal polymers). (Note: As Schroder et al.’s material is within the scope of claim 12, it fits claim 11, as the materials of claim 12 are prescribed to fit within the scope of claim 11.) As to claim 14, Schroder et al. teaches the transverse support device of the intermediate wall [13], which has an elongate shape that fits in a parallelepiped with a minimum rectangular cross-section of height H1, width W and length D, D being greater than W and H1, and the height H1 being slightly greater that a height H2 of said battery cell (figs. 2a, 2b, 6a, 6b). As to claim 16, Schroder et al.t each the side-to- side conductor elements are in the form of pins or rods (i.e. positioning pin [88]) (para 0129; fig. 10b). (Note: This interpretation regarding the pin is taken in light of claim 16 lacking any limitations regarding the conductor element, because pin [88] t the very least conducts engagement.) As to claim 17, Schroder et al. teach the battery connection plates (separating layer [38]) are made of a conductive material, optionally coated on an inner side with an insulating material covering said chambers (at the very least thermally conductive, as it closes the cooling passage) (figs. 2a-2c; para 0143). As to claim 19, Schroder et al. teach the battery connection plates (separating layer [38]) are sealingly bonded to the support frame (intermediate wall [13]) by a weld connection (para 0032) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroder et al. (The teachings of Schroder et al. as set forth above and applicable herein are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.) As to claim 18, Schroder et al. do not teach the battery connection plates are made of a metal (as separating layer [38] is plastic (para 0081)). However, Schroder et al. recognizes that cooling plates can be made out of metal or polymers (para 0006). The substitution of metal for plastic (polymer) regarding a cooling structure would yield the predictable result of acting as the material for a cooling structure, as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute metal for plastic (polymer) regarding a cooling structure would, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as the material for a cooling structure, as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroder et al., as applied to claims 1, 2, and 5 above, further in view of US 2015/0200429 (Lee et al.) . As to claim 3, Schroder et al. do not teach the chamber separation walls extend at an intermediate angle with respect to both an X direction and a Y direction from a first side of the support frame to an opposite second side of the support frame, a plurality of successive chamber separation walls thus following a zigzag shape seen in a Z direction, whereby X, Y, and Z represent three mutually perpendicular axes of a cartesian reference system. However, Lee et al. teach chamber separation walls extend at an intermediate angle with respect to both an X direction and a Y direction from a first side of the support frame to an opposite second side of the support frame, a plurality of successive chamber separation walls thus following a zigzag shape seen in a Z direction, whereby X, Y, and Z represent three mutually perpendicular axes of a cartesian reference system (figs. 4-6, regarding the cooling structure). The substitution of one shape regarding a cooling structure (i.e. the chamber separation walls extend at an intermediate angle with respect to both an X direction and a Y direction from a first side of the support frame to an opposite second side of the support frame, a plurality of successive chamber separation walls thus following a zigzag shape seen in a Z direction, whereby X, Y, and Z represent three mutually perpendicular axes of a cartesian reference system, as in Lee et al.) for another (flat and stacked, as in Schroder et al.) would yield the predictable result of acting as a cooling structure as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute one shape regarding a cooling structure (i.e. the chamber separation walls extend at an intermediate angle with respect to both an X direction and a Y direction from a first side of the support frame to an opposite second side of the support frame, a plurality of successive chamber separation walls thus following a zigzag shape seen in a Z direction, whereby X, Y, and Z represent three mutually perpendicular axes of a cartesian reference system) for another (flat and stacked) would yield the predictable result of acting as a cooling structure as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I). As to claim 6, Schroder et al. do not teach the plurality of transverse support devices and a plurality of said fluid interconnection shafts form a serpentine structure. However, Lee et al. teach the plurality of transverse support devices and a plurality of said fluid interconnection shafts form a serpentine structure (figs. 4-6, regarding the cooling structure). The substitution of one shape regarding a cooling structure (i.e. the plurality of transverse support devices and a plurality of said fluid interconnection shafts form a serpentine structure, as in Lee et al.) for another (flat and stacked, as in Schroder et al.) would yield the predictable result of acting as a cooling structure as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute one shape regarding a cooling structure (i.e. the plurality of transverse support devices and a plurality of said fluid interconnection shafts form a serpentine structure) for another (flat and stacked) would yield the predictable result of acting as a cooling structure as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I). Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claims 15, 20, and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and the rejection(s) 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: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, suggest, or render obvious the invention of at least claim 15 and claim 20. Claim 15 teaches the battery pack comprising the elements therein. Notably, the claim requires “the support frame comprises side-to-side conductor elements which traverse a dielectric material of the support frame from a first side to an opposite second side and electrically interconnect battery connection plates mounted on said first and opposite second sides.” Schroder et al. teaches that the terminals face open sides of support devices (intermediate wall [13] (figs2a, 6b; electrical connections [44] are located on the same side (fig. 5)). No motivation exists to materially rearrange the manner of stacking of the cells regarding the support frame and to electrically connect through the support frame. Thus, none of the prior art teaches, suggests or renders obvious claim 15. Claim 20 teaches the battery pack comprising the elements therein. Notably, the claim requires “a plurality of battery cells mounted and electrically interconnected between the transverse support devices, each battery cell having…a height H2, length L and thickness T, L being greater than H2, the plurality of battery cells being stacked in the direction of their thickness T in the direction of a Y axis…the transverse support device extending in the Y direction, and the length L of the battery cell oriented in the X direction, whereby X, Y, and Z represent three mutually perpendicular axes of a cartesian reference system, electrical terminals of the battery cells arranged on ends of the battery cells in contact with the battery connection plates.” Schroder et al. teaches that the terminals face open sides of support devices (intermediate walls [13])/battery connection plates (separating layer [38]) (figs. 2b, 6b; electrical connections [44] are located on the same side (fig. 5, 6e)). No motivation exists to materially rearrange the manner of stacking of the cells regarding the support device and to electrically connect via contact with the battery connection plates. Thus, none of the prior art teaches, suggests or renders obvious claim 20. Since claim 21 is dependent upon claim 20, it is allowable for the same reason. Conclusion Note: No other prior art is considered pertinent. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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. /EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 2 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 3 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 4 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 5 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 6 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 7 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 8 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 9 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 10 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 11 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 12 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 13 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 14 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 15 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 16 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 17 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 18 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 19 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/551,884 Page 20 Art Unit: 1759
Prosecution Insights