TheEEStory
News, Reviews & Discussion of EEStor Inc.
Website Full Disclosure Do not use this website for investment advice. New Chat Rooms
12/245,461 - METHOD OF FORMING AN ELECTRICAL ENERGY STORAGE UNIT (Notice Of Allowance)
*** On May 2, 2012 the USPTO changed the status to "Allowed -- Notice of Allowance Not Yet Mailed" ***
EEStor has responded. Assuming I'm reading this right, this one looks like it is getting close as the response makes all the the changes suggested by the examiner in the last Final rejection.
- Attachments:
-
-
12245461-2012-04-27.pdf, 229 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by DAP on -
Assuming the claims are allowed in their currently amended state, the salient question is – How difficult will it be for others to manufacture an EESU-like device if they are forced to use a process that these claims do not ‘read on.’
As a basis for discussion, does any forum member care to list a process they believe would create an EESU and which would not infringe on the methods of independent claims 9 & 24?
-
Permalink Reply by DAP on
-
One more thing - note that the following text appears at the top of the second page of the February 22nd Final Office Action:
“A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.”
Accordingly, the deadline for response May 22, 2012. The Reply was filed on April 27th. Most patent attorneys wait until the last minute in order to file a response, and frequently use whatever extensions are available (up to 3 additional months in this instance).
-
Permalink Reply by InWDC on -
So why the filing 25 days early? Does this mean something?
DAP said:One more thing - note that the following text appears at the top of the second page of the February 22nd Final Office Action:
“A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.”
Accordingly, the deadline for response May 22, 2012. The Reply was filed on April 27th. Most patent attorneys wait until the last minute in order to file a response, and frequently use whatever extensions are available (up to 3 additional months in this instance).
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Villars on -
DAP said:
...
Accordingly, the deadline for response May 22, 2012. The Reply was filed on April 27th. Most patent attorneys wait until the last minute in order to file a response, and frequently use whatever extensions are available (up to 3 additional months in this instance).
:->
-
Permalink Reply by DaveM on -
Thanks DAP!
DAP said:One more thing - note that the following text appears at the top of the second page of the February 22nd Final Office Action:
“A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.”
Accordingly, the deadline for response May 22, 2012. The Reply was filed on April 27th. Most patent attorneys wait until the last minute in order to file a response, and frequently use whatever extensions are available (up to 3 additional months in this instance).
-
Permalink Reply by wcushman on -
The mail room needs 2+ months to mail the document. This is not uncommon in government offices.
lemnscate said:How could 30 days ever be longer than 3 months?
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Olthwaite on -
It's all working; no need for this equipment they now have a working prototype production line that can be is being replicated.
Y_Po said:No wonder, Weir have not even unpacked his FULL EXTRUSION SYSTEM
© 2013 Created by B.
