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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 2/10/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 2 and 12 are canceled and claims 1 and 3-11 are pending.
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.
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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matte et al (US 2019/0165341 A1) in view of Swayze (US 5,040,627 A).
Regarding claim 1, Matte discloses a single golf cart battery (battery array assembly #16 in Fig. 1; paragraph [0022]), comprising:
a housing (housing of battery array assembly #16 in Fig. 3A; paragraph [0025]);
a first aperture through a central portion of a top of the housing (opening on top of battery array assembly for receiving hold-down bolt #90 in Figs. 6A and 6B; paragraph [0034]);
two terminals on an outside surface of the housing (positive terminal #46 and negative terminal #48 on outside surface of housing of battery array assembly; paragraph [0035]);
and a hold-down rod sized so as to be receivable through a channel (hold-down bolt #90 in Fig. 6A and 6B; paragraph [0035]).
The battery array assembly is a single assembly of batteries and is considered to be a single battery.
Matte does not disclose the single battery comprising a second aperture through a central portion of a bottom of the housing and the first and second apertures are aligned to form a channel through the housing.
However, Swayze discloses the single battery (col. 2, lines 25-26) comprising a first aperture through a central portion of a top of the housing (center of bracket member #54 has an aperture; Fig. 5; col. 6, lines 18-43) a second aperture through a central portion of a bottom of the housing (base #16 has an aperture; Fig. 5; col. 6, lines 18-43), the first and second apertures are aligned to form a channel through the housing (apertures of bracket member #54 and base #16 in Fig. 5 are aligned to form a channel; col. 6, lines 18-43) and a hold-down rod sized so as to be receivable through the channel (rod member extending through the aperture; col. 6, lines 18-43).
The single battery being for a golf cart is an intended use limitation that would be inherently due to the structure of the single battery of Matte and Swayze being the same as the claimed structure of the single battery as claimed in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte to include the aperture of Swayze on the base of the battery array assembly of Swayze such that the apertures on the top of the housing and bottom of the housing are aligned because doing so provides a mechanism for securing batteries to a base in a quick and easy manner with a minimum of hardware (col. 6, lines 44-47 of Swayze).
Regarding claim 5, Matte and Swayze discloses the battery of claim 1 as noted above.
Matte does not disclose the single battery further comprising a cap positioned over the first aperture.
However, Swayze discloses the single battery further comprising a cap positioned over the first aperture (wing nut positioned over the aperture; col. 5, lines 30-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte to include the wing nut of Swayze on the hold-down bolt of Matte because doing so allows for a cover member to be secured thereon (col. 5, lines 40-44 of Swayze).
Regarding claim 6, Matte and Swayze discloses the battery of claim 5 as noted above.
Matte does not disclose the single battery further comprising a cap receiving a threaded top portion of a hold-down rod.
However, Swayze discloses the single battery further comprising a cap receiving a threaded top portion of a hold-down rod (wing nut positioned over the aperture and threaded onto rod member; col. 5, lines 30-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte to include the wing nut of Swayze on the hold-down bolt of Matte because doing so allows for a cover member to be secured thereon (col. 5, lines 40-44 of Swayze).
Claims 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matte et al (US 2019/0165341 A1) in view of Swayze (US 5,040,627 A) in further view of Platt (US 4,926,953 A).
Regarding claim 3, Matte and Swayze discloses the single battery of claim 3 as noted above.
Matte and Swayze do not disclose the single battery comprising the hold-down rod comprising a J-hook portion.
However, Platt discloses a battery hold-down structure comprising a hold-down rod comprising a J-hook portion (a bolt having a top portion being threaded and a bottom portion having a J configuration; Fig. 1 #12; col. 3, lines 18-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte and Swayze to include the J configuration of the battery hold-down structure of Platt on the hold-down bolt of Matte because having a hold-down rod with a J hook configuration allows for the hold-down rod to be inserted and hooked onto a lower structure without the need for additional lower fasteners.
Regarding claim 4, Matte, Swayze and Platt disclose the single battery of claim 3 as noted above.
Matte does not disclose the single battery comprising the hold-down rod having a threaded top portion.
However, Swayze discloses the single battery comprising a hold-down rod having a threaded top portion (a rod member threaded along a distal portion; col. 5, lines 20-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte to substitute the threaded distal portion of the rod member of Swayze for the distal portion of the hold-down bolt of Matte because doing so allows for a cover member to be secured thereon (col. 5, lines 40-44 of Swayze).
Regarding claim 8, Matte discloses a single battery, comprising:
a housing (housing of battery array assembly #16 in Fig. 3A; paragraph [0025]);
two terminals extending outwardly from an outside surface of the housing (positive terminal #46 and negative terminal #48 on outside surface of housing of battery array assembly; paragraph [0035]);
a first aperture through a first side of the single battery housing (opening on top of battery array assembly for receiving hold-down bolt #90 in Figs. 6A and 6B; paragraph [0034]); and
a hold-down rod positionable through the first aperture, the channel, and the second aperture (hold-down bolt #90 in Fig. 6A and 6B; paragraph [0035]).
Matte does not disclose the single battery comprising a second aperture through a central portion of a bottom of the housing and the first and second apertures are aligned to form a channel through the housing.
However, Swayze discloses the single battery (col. 2, lines 25-26) comprising a first aperture through a central portion of a top of the housing (center of bracket member #54 has an aperture; Fig. 5; col. 6, lines 18-43) a second aperture through a central portion of a bottom of the housing (base #16 has an aperture; Fig. 5; col. 6, lines 18-43), the first and second apertures are aligned to form a channel through the housing (apertures of bracket member #54 and base #16 in Fig. 5 are aligned to form a channel; col. 6, lines 18-43) and a hold-down rod sized so as to be receivable through the channel (rod member extending through the aperture; col. 6, lines 18-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte to include the aperture of Swayze on the base of the battery array assembly of Swayze such that the apertures on the top of the housing and bottom of the housing are aligned because doing so provides a mechanism for securing batteries to a base in a quick and easy manner with a minimum of hardware (col. 6, lines 44-47 of Swayze).
Matte does not disclose the single battery comprising the hold-down rod having a threaded top portion.
However, Swayze discloses the single battery comprising a hold-down rod having a threaded top portion (a rod member threaded along a distal portion; col. 5, lines 20-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte to substitute the threaded distal portion of the rod member of Swayze for the distal portion of the hold-down bolt of Matte because doing so allows for a cover member to be secured thereon (col. 5, lines 40-44 of Swayze).
Matte does not disclose the single battery comprising a cap configured to receive a threaded top end of the hold down rod, the cap sized as to cover the first aperture and a nut for securing the hold-down rod to the cap.
However, Swayze discloses the single battery comprising a cap configured to receive a threaded top end of the hold down rod (threaded nut securing bracket member to base; col. 5, lines 30-44), the cap sized as to cover the first aperture (threaded nut covering the aperture; col. 5, lines 30-44) and a nut for securing the hold-down rod to the cap (wing nut securing rod member to threaded nut; col. 5, lines 30-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte to include the threaded nut and wing nut of Swayze on the hold-down bolt of Matte because doing so allows for a cover member to be secured thereon (col. 5, lines 40-44 of Swayze).
Matte does not disclose the single battery comprising the hold-down rod comprising a J-hook portion on a bottom end and being configured to engage a crossbar.
However, Platt discloses a battery hold-down structure comprising a hold-down rod comprising a J-hook portion and being configured to engage a crossbar (a bolt having a top portion being threaded and a bottom portion having a J configuration; Fig. 1 #12; col. 3, lines 18-25).
The single battery being for a golf cart is an intended use limitation that would be inherently due to the structure of the single battery of Matte and Swayze and Platt being the same as the claimed structure of the single battery as claimed in claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte to include the J configuration of the battery hold-down structure of Platt on the hold-down bolt of Matte because having a hold-down rod with a J hook configuration allows for the hold-down rod to be inserted and hooked onto a lower structure without the need for additional lower fasteners.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matte et al (US 2019/0165341 A1) in view of Swayze (US 5,040,627 A) in further view of Sun (CN 211480149 U).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Sun (CN 211480149 U).
Regarding claim 7, Matte and Swayze disclose the single battery of claim 1 as noted above.
Matte and Swayze do not disclose the single battery further comprising a plurality of handles.
However, Sun discloses a lithium battery system comprising a plurality of handles (a box cover comprising handles and handle mounting holes; Fig. 1 #221 and #222; pg. 3 of Sun translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte and Swayze to include the handles of Sun on the battery array assembly of Matte because having handles allows for the device to be easily lifted.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matte et al (US 2019/0165341 A1) in view of Swayze (US 5,040,627 A) in further view of Platt (US 4,926,953 A) in further view of Sun (CN 211480149 U).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Sun (CN 211480149 U).
Regarding claim 9, Matte, Swayze and Platt disclose the single battery of claim 8 as noted above.
Matte, Swayze and Platt do not disclose the single battery comprising the single battery further comprising at least one handle.
However, Sun discloses a lithium battery system comprising at least one handle (a box cover comprising handles and handle mounting holes; Fig. 1 #221 and #222; pg. 3 of Sun translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte, Swayze and Platt to include the handles of Sun on the battery array assembly of Matte because having handles allows for the device to be easily lifted.
Regarding claim 10, Matte, Swayze, Platt and Sun disclose the single battery of claim 8 as noted above.
Matte, Swayze and Platt do not disclose the single battery comprising a plurality of handles.
However, Sun discloses a lithium battery system comprising a plurality of handles (a box cover comprising handles and handle mounting holes; Fig. 1 #221 and #222; pg. 3 of Sun translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte, Swayze and Platt to include the handles of Sun on the battery array assembly of Matte because having handles allows for the device to be easily lifted.
Regarding claim 11, Matte, Swayze, Platt and Sun disclose the single battery of claim 10 as noted above.
Matte, Swayze and Platt do not disclose the single battery comprising each handle received in a recessed portion of the handle and each handle is hingedly coupled to the respective recessed portion.
However, Sun discloses the single battery comprising each handle received in a recessed portion of the handle and each handle is hingedly coupled to the respective recessed portion (a box cover comprising handles hingedly connected to handle mounting holes; Fig. 1 #221 and #222; pg. 3 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single battery of Matte, Swayze and Platt to include the handles of Sun on the battery array assembly of Matte because having handles allows for the device to be easily lifted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants argue that Hammond does not disclose a golf cart battery comprising a housing, a channel through the housing and two terminal on an outside surface of the housing.
This argument is moot as Hammond does not disclose a golf cart battery comprising a housing, a channel through the housing and two terminal on an outside surface of the housing. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1785