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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 9, 14, and 18-20 were cancelled, and claims 22 and 25 were cancelled. New claim 26 has been added, and claims 1 and 24 have been amended. Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-17, 21, 23-24, and 26 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation that “a plurality of grounding cables received within the at least one inactive opening of the at least a first battery module and the at least one inactive opening of the at least a second battery module such that the plurality of grounding cables are not electrically connected to the batteries of the at least a first said battery module and a second said battery module.” However, this limitation is not recited in the specification, nor is it clearly present in the figures. The only figure which currently depicts adjacent battery modules connected via a plurality of cables is fig. 3. However, fig. 3 depicts connection via cables (120), not grounding cables (412). Therefore, application currently does not have sufficient support for this limitation.
Claim 24 includes the new limitation “the grounding cable is received within the inactive opening and configured to electrically ground said at least one of the rear plate and the front plate with said inactive opening without electrically connecting to the battery.” However, this is not stated in the applicant’s specification, nor is it obvious from the figures. Therefore, it is considered new matter. For purpose of examination, so long as there is a grounding cable not electrically connected to the battery within the housing as previously claimed, it will read on claim 24.
Similarly, new claim 26 reads “at least a first battery module and the at least a second battery module being grounded to each other via the corresponding grounding cables received within the corresponding at least one inactive openings.” This also is never stated in the applicant’s specification. Further, Fig. 3 does show a connection between adjacent battery modules, however that connection is made by reference numeral 120 – cable, not reference numeral 412 – grounding cable. Therefore, applicant does not have support for the new claim. For purpose of examination, so long as a grounding cable is present and not electrically connected to the battery within the housing as limited by claim 24, it will read on claim 26.
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.
Claim 1-8 and 10-11 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the battery module comprising… at least one of a grounding cable, a clipping structure adapted to receive a cable, or a supplemental, non-conductive attachment,” and the claim also recites “the grounding cable received within the inactive opening,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purpose of examination, so long as one of a grounding cable, a clipping structure adapted to receive a cable, or a supplemental, non-conductive attachment is present in the prior art, it will read on claim 1.
Claims 2-8 and 10-11 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 23 is dependent upon now-cancelled claim 22, which is improper. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 113178653A, referenced in IDS submitted 08/22/2023, Espacenet translation provided for reference) in view of Choi et al. (U.S. 20190051875) and Ono et al. (EP 2980883A1, referenced in IDS submitted 08/22/2023, used applicant-provided translation for reference).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, 23-24 and 26, Wu discloses a battery module for construction of a battery pack ([0020-0030]), the battery module comprising:
a rectangular housing (1 – box body), the housing including an upper face (2 – box cover), a bottom face (labeled), a first side face (labeled) extending between the upper face (2) and the bottom face (labeled), a second side face (labeled) extending between the upper face (2) and the bottom face (labeled), a front open end (labeled) and a rear open end (labeled) (Fig. 2 – above), the housing (1) including a plurality of housing bores (labeled) extending substantially perpendicular through the upper face (labeled), the bottom face (labeled), the first side face (labeled) and the second side face (labeled) proximal to the front open end (labeled) (Fig. 2- above), and a plurality of housing bores (labeled) extending substantially perpendicularly through the upper face (labeled), the bottom face (labeled), the first side face (labeled) and the second side face (labeled) proximal to the rear open end (labeled) (Fig. 5 - below);
a battery (8) disposed within the rectangular housing (1) (Fig, 3);
a rear plate (labeled), the rear plate (labeled) closing the rear open end (labeled) of the housing (1) (Fig. 2 – above), the rear plate (labeled) including a plurality of rear plate bores (1a) in axial alignment with the plurality of housing bores (labeled) proximal the rear open end of the housing (1) (Fig. 2 - above);
a front plate (3 – control panel), the front plate (3) closing the front open end (labeled) of the housing (1) (Fig. 2 – above), the front plate (3) including a positive terminal and a negative terminal (5 – fence terminal connector) electrically connected to the battery (8) (Fig. 2, [0060]), the battery (8) being sealed within the rectangular housing (1), the rear plate (labeled), and the front plate (3) (Fig. 3), the front plate (3) including a plurality of front plate bores (labeled) in axial alignment with the plurality of housing bores (labeled) proximal the front open end (labeled) of the housing (1) (Fig. 2 – above).
Wu does not disclosure a grounding cable present that is not electrically connected to the battery sealed within the housing.
Choi discloses a battery (200 ) and teaches a grounding cable (700) is connected to an end plate (300) of battery housing (100) and a BMS circuit (500), not the battery (200) ([0040]). Choi further teaches that this allows for static electricity generated outside the battery pack to be emitted out of the pack ([0071]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include a grounding cable connected to an end plate of a battery housing as taught by Choi to the battery disclosed by Wu in order to emit excess static electricity outside the battery pack.
Modified Wu discloses a grounding cable, specifically a grounding cable not electrically connected to a battery, but does not disclose at least one of the rear plate and the front plate including at least one inactive opening, and said grounding cable being received by said inactive opening.
Ono discloses a battery module (32 – battery) with a housing (32 – battery tray) and teaches the battery module includes a grounding cable (38 – grounding wire) wherein at least one front or rear plate (64 – side wall) includes an inactive opening (38b – connects to crankcase 2- or engine as grounding, i.e. not electrically connected to the battery) adapted to receive the grounding cable (38) (Fig. 4). Ono further teaches that this assembly facilitates the installation and removal of the battery while preventing the battery from moving in a battery holding structure ([abstract]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the clipping structures and grounding cable assembly taught by Ono in the battery module disclosed by Wu in order to facilitate the installation and removal of the battery while preventing the battery from moving in a battery holding structure.
Although the prior art of Wu does not explicitly disclose a rear open end and that the housing includes housing bores close in proximity to the rear open end, which interact with the rear plate to close the rear open end, the modification to make the rear plate assembly of Wu separable would be an obvious design variation. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Further, in order to make the rear plate separable, as is shown in the front plate assembly of Wu, the housing bores in proximity to the rear plate would need to be included in order for a connecting structure to secure the rear plate to the housing.
With respect to claim 2, modified Wu discloses inactive opening in a plate of a battery housing (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose that there are a plurality of inactive openings. However, applicant is reminded that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In this instance, duplicating the inactive openings in order to receive other cables is not an unexpected result. Therefore, the duplication of the inactive opening is an obvious design variation.
With respect to claim 3 -5, modified Wu discloses that the inactive openings (38b) includes an engaging structure (38b1 – crimped (threaded) portion) adapted to maintain the grounding cable (28) which inhibits the separation of the grounding cable (38) from the inactive opening (38b) (Fig. 6 of Ono, [0056]).
Applicant’s own definition of the engaging structure having a protrusion is “the engaging structure 428 may be one or more protrusions, such as an annular protrusion, or an internal thread,” ([0052]). Therefore, according to the applicant, an internal thread is a type of protrusion and reads on claim 4.
Claims 7-8 contain limitations that describe the clipping structure, which was presented as an optional component to the battery module in claim 1. As it is not claimed that the clipping structure is ever a required of the battery module, it is considered an optional feature. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. (Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
With respect to claim 10, modified Wu discloses that at least one inactive opening (38b) is a recess (38b1 – holds end of wire), said recess (38b1) does not extend through the rear or front plate (64) (Fig. 6 of Ono, [0056]).
With respect to claim 11, modified Wu discloses the front plate (3) includes a plurality of flanges (labeled) (Fig. 2 – above, Fig. 6 shows the flanges form a rectangle around the inside perimeter of plate 3, thus reading on a “plurality” of flanges), the plurality of front plate bores (labeled) extending through the plurality of flanges (labeled) of the front plate (3) (Fig. 2 – above), the plurality of flanges (labeled) of the front plate (3) being disposed substantially adjacent the front open end (labeled) of the housing (1) (Fig. 2 – above).
With respect to claim 21, modified Wu discloses an inactive opening (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose whether or not the opening extends entirely through the front or rear plate such that the battery remains sealing within the housing. However, it is clear via the modification of Wu in view of Ono creates a closed housing with an inactive opening for grounding the battery (see rejection of claim 1). Applicant is reminded that a change in shape is “…a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant,” (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). As the opening being a through hole or a recess does not change the openings ability to act as a grounding contact, the claimed shape is not significant.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view of Ono et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakazawa (U.S. 20080299452).
With respect to claim 6, modified Wu does not disclose that at least one of the rear or front plate is a casting.
Nakazawa disclose a casing for a battery ([0045]) and teaches the casing can be formed via casting ([0045]). Nakazawa further teaches that this method allows for the metal to be shaped ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed for the front and rear places disclosed by modified Wu to be a casting as taught by Nakazawa so that the plates can be shaped via casting.
Claim(s) 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 113178653A, referenced in IDS submitted 08/22/2023, Espacenet translation provided for reference) in view of Choi et al. (U.S. 20190051875), Ono et al. (EP 2980883A1, referenced in IDS submitted 08/22/2023, used applicant-provided translation for reference) and Huang et al. (U.S. 20230103073).
With respect to claim 12, modified Wu discloses a battery pack ([0020]) comprising:
a plurality of battery modules ([0023]), each said battery module including:
a rectangular housing (1 – box body), the housing including an upper face (2 – box cover), a bottom face (labeled), a first side face (labeled) extending between the upper face (2) and the bottom face (labeled), a second side face (labeled) extending between the upper face (2) and the bottom face (labeled), a front open end (labeled) and a rear open end (labeled) (Fig. 2 – above), the housing (1) including a plurality of housing bores (labeled) extending substantially perpendicular through the upper face (labeled), the bottom face (labeled), the first side face (labeled) and the second side face (labeled) proximal to the front open end (labeled) (Fig. 2- above), and a plurality of housing bores (labeled) extending substantially perpendicularly through the upper face (labeled), the bottom face (labeled), the first side face (labeled) and the second side face (labeled) proximal to the rear open end (labeled) (Fig. 5 - below);
a battery (8) disposed within the rectangular housing (1) (Fig, 3);
a rear plate (labeled), the rear plate (labeled) closing the rear open end (labeled) of the housing (1) (Fig. 2 – above), the rear plate (labeled) including a plurality of rear plate bores (1a) in axial alignment with the plurality of housing bores (labeled) proximal the rear open end of the housing (1) (Fig. 2 - above);
a front plate (3 – control panel), the front plate (3) closing the front open end (labeled) of the housing (1) (Fig. 2 – above), the front plate (3) including a positive terminal and a negative terminal (5 – fence terminal connector) electrically connected to the battery (8) (Fig. 2, [0060]), the battery (8) being sealed within the rectangular housing (1), the rear plate (labeled), and the front plate (3) (Fig. 3), the front plate (3) including a plurality of front plate bores (labeled) in axial alignment with the plurality of housing bores (labeled) proximal the front open end (labeled) of the housing (1) (Fig. 2 – above).
Wu does not disclosure a grounding cable present that is not electrically connected to the battery sealed within the housing.
Choi discloses a battery (200 ) and teaches a grounding cable (700) is connected to an end plate (300) of battery housing (100) and a BMS circuit (500), not the battery (200) ([0040]). Choi further teaches that this allows for static electricity generated outside the battery pack to be emitted out of the pack ([0071]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include a grounding cable connected to an end plate of a battery housing as taught by Choi to the battery disclosed by Wu in order to emit excess static electricity outside the battery pack.
Wu does not disclose at least one of a grounding cable, a clipping structure adapted to receive a cable, or a supplemental, non-conductive attachment or at least one of the rear plate and the front plate including at least one inactive opening, said at least one of said grounding cable, the clipping structure adapted to receive a cable, or the supplemental, non-conductive attachment being received by said inactive opening.
Ono discloses a battery module (32 – battery) with a housing (32 – battery tray) and teaches the battery module includes a grounding cable (38 – grounding wire) wherein at least one front or rear plate (64 – side wall) includes an inactive opening (38b – connects to crankcase 2- or engine as grounding, i.e. not connected to the battery) adapted to receive the grounding cable (38) (Fig. 4). Ono further teaches that this assembly facilitates the installation and removal of the battery while preventing the battery from moving in a battery holding structure ([abstract]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the clipping structures and grounding cable assembly taught by Ono in the battery module disclosed by Wu in order to facilitate the installation and removal of the battery while preventing the battery from moving in a battery holding structure.
Although the prior art of Wu does not explicitly disclose a rear open end and that the housing includes housing bores close in proximity to the rear open end, which interact with the rear plate to close the rear open end, the modification to make the rear plate assembly of Wu separable would be an obvious design variation. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Further, in order to make the rear plate separable, as is shown in the front plate assembly of Wu, the housing bores in proximity to the rear plate would need to be included in order for a connecting structure to secure the rear plate to the housing.
Additionally, although the prior art of Wu teaches only a single grounding cable (38) disposed within the inactive opening (38b), applicant is reminded that that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In this instance, the modification of Wu to include plurality of grounding cables through an inactive opening does not produce a new or unexpected result, and is therefore an obvious modification.
Modified Wu does not disclose at least two couplers securing together at least a first said battery module and a second said battery module, at least a first of said couplers being disposed through at least one of the plurality of rear plate bores in axial alignment with at least one of the plurality of housing bores proximal the rear open end of the housing, and at least a second of said couplers being disposed through at least one of the plurality of front plate bores in axial alignment with at least one of the plurality of housing bores proximal the front open end of the housing; a plurality of electrical couplers electrically coupling the terminals of the at least a first said battery module and a second said battery module.
Huang discloses a plurality of battery modules (20, 30 40, 50) and teaches at least two couplers (20321– enclosure protrusion lines) for a first and second battery module (20/30) (Fig. 16A-C, [00189-00190]), at least a first of said couplers (20321) being disposed through at least one of the plurality of rear plate bores (20191 of rear plate not shown) in axial alignment with at least one of the plurality of housing bores (20322) at the rear open end of the housing (203) (Fig. 16A-C), and at least a second of said couplers (20321) being disposed through at least one of the plurality of front plate bores (20191) in axial alignment with at least one of the plurality of housing bores (20322) proximal the front open end (2031) of the housing (203) (Fig. 16A-C only shows how outer frame (2030) connects with the front plate (201) to connect with housing (203), however it is clearly states that the outer frame 2030 also can be combined with the back plate (202) to close the rear of the housing (203) ([0174]), thus the front plate bores 20191 also can read on rear plate bores in order to connect with the housing bores 20322 which run the length of the housing (203); a plurality of electrical couplers (931, 932, 933, 934, 935 – casing connector) electrically coupling the terminals of the first module (20) to a second module (30, 40, 50, etc.) (Fig. 22, [00207-0208]). Huang further teaches that these arrangements allow neighboring modules to be stacked and both electrically and mechanically coupled together ([0207], [0190]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the couplers and electrical couplers taught by Huang to the housing plates disclosed by modified Wu in order to allow for neighboring modules to be mechanically and electrically coupled.
Claims 13 contains limitations that describe the non-conductive coupling structure, which was presented as an optional component to the battery module in claim 12. As it is not claimed that the clipping structure is ever a required of the battery module, it is considered an optional feature. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. (Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Therefore, only the faceplate and coupling of the faceplate to the housing is required to be present in prior art to read on claim 13.
While Huang does not disclose of a faceplate coupled to the front plate to cover the front plate, Huang does disclose a casing (90), which covers the front plates (201) of the battery modules (20, 30, 40, 50) (Fig. 21-22). The purpose of the casing (90) to shield the front plates (201) is identical to that of the faceplate, according to paragraph [0053] of applicant’s specification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed that the casing (90) could be connected to the front plates (201) as an alternative method of shielding the front plates.
With respect to claim 15-16, modified Wu discloses that the inactive openings (38b) includes an engaging structure (38b1 – crimped (threaded) portion) adapted to maintain the grounding cable (28) which inhibits the separation of the grounding cable (38) from the inactive opening (38b) (Fig. 6 of Ono, [0056]).
Applicant’s own definition of the engaging structure having a protrusion is “the engaging structure 428 may be one or more protrusions, such as an annular protrusion, or an internal thread,” ([0052]). Therefore, according to the applicant, an internal thread is a type of protrusion and reads on claim 4.
Claim 17 contain limitations that describe the clipping structure, which was presented as an optional component to the battery module in claim 1. As it is not claimed that the clipping structure is ever a required of the battery module, it is considered an optional feature. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. (Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, seepages 8-14 of response, filed 03/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 12, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 using Wu in view of Choi and Ono. Applicant’s arguments that the modification of Ono by Choi would change the mode of operation of the grounding cable of Ono, as the grounding cables of Ono are connected on one end to a terminal, therefore modifying the connection to not be connected to the terminal would change the mode of operation were persuasive. However, upon further examination, it is noted by the examiner that the prior art of Ono is used to read on the connection structure between the grounding cables and casing, rather than the electrical connection created by the grounding cables itself. In order to address this, examiner has re-worked the rejection so that the electrical connection, or lack thereof, between the battery and grounding cables is established via Choi, and then the connection structure is used to modify said established modification.
Additionally, the limitation of the grounding cable not being connected to the battery as limited by claim 12 has now been addressed in the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727