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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on July 14, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-12 are amended and claims 13-15 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1-12 and 16 pending for examination.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mount (US 2003/0039881 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 12, and 16, Mount teaches a battery enclosure with a cabinet structure to facilitate the replacement of batteries in rack-mount devices (¶ [0008], Ln. 1-3). The cabinet (casing) is formed by a base (100; first plane), right side bracket (102R; second plane), left side bracket (102L; fourth plane), top cover (104; third plane), and rear panel (140) (¶ [0172], Ln. 1-5; Fig. 1).
Sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) are located on an inner surface of the base (100; first plane) and have a predetermined length (Fig. 1). The sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) are parallel to the length dimension of the base. Sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements) are also located on an inner surface of the base (100; first plane) and have a second predetermined length (Fig. 1). Brackets (136, 138; first connector) are mounted at the end of the base (100; first plane) and as shown in Figure 1, between sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements) along the width of the structure (¶ [0172], Ln. 22-24; Fig. 1).
Mount teaches that battery sleds are mounted through the front panel of the module (¶ [0172], Ln. 1-3). The sled bases (118) are guided by the sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements), indicating that the sled bases (118) include an element (second pair of guide elements) to engage with the sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements), forming a first connection. Additionally, the sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements) stop the movement of the sled bases (118) in a nominal position within the battery module and may provide for fastening the sled bases (118) to the sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements) to secure the battery sled (118) to the battery module (¶ [0172], Ln. 6-13), indicating that the battery sled includes an element (second pair of rail elements) to engage with the sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements), forming a second connection. The brackets (136, 138; first connector) provide mounting for electrical connectors, such that when the sled base (118) is inserted into sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements), the final position permits the electrical connectors to mate (¶ [0172], Ln. 22-27), indicating that the battery sled contains electrical connectors (second connection), forming a third connection and providing electric power.
Mount does not expressly teach that sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements), sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements), and the corresponding second guide elements and second rail elements of the battery sled are located on the top cover (104; third plane), or that the additional sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) are in line with the existing sled rails on the base (100; first plane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cabinet structure of Mount to include the same sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements), sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements), and the corresponding second guide elements and second rail elements of the battery sled on the top cover (104; third plane), in addition to the base (100; first plane) (first pair or rail elements defined on an inner surface of each the first and the third side plane). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that additional connection points would make the battery sled more secure in the cabinet (casing). One would be motivated to include connection points at the base and the top of the cabinet (casing) in order to better secure the battery sled in the cabinet. The duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result in produced (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the additional pair of sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) on the top cover (104; third plane) to be in line with the sled rails on the base (100; first plane). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to duplicate the same spatial arrangement on the top cover as is provided on the bottom cover. One would be motivated to keep the rails in line to better balance the battery tray in the cabinet structure.
Regarding claim 2, Mount teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the base (100; first plane) is opposite the top cover (104; third plane) and the right side bracket (102R; second plane) is opposite the left side bracket (102L; fourth plane) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Mount teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the length of the sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) is longer than the length of the sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Mount teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements) are formed in between the sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) on the inner surface of the base (100; first plane) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Mount teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Mount does not expressly teach that the pair of sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) is positioned at a first predetermined distance (d1) from each other and at a second predetermined distance (d2) from the longitudinal axis, the second predetermined distance (d2) equivalent to one half of the first predetermined distance (d1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) of Mount to be positioned at the predetermined distances specified in the claim. The battery enclosure taught by Mount includes two battery sleds on the inner surface of the base (100; first plane). As shown in Figure 1, the sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) for the battery sleds (118) are symmetrical across the longitudinal axis of the base (100; first plane). In the case that only one battery sled (118) was included in the battery enclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the battery sled (118), and therefore the sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements), would be centered on the base, based on the teachings of Mount that the base (100; first plane) is symmetrical (Fig. 1). In doing so, the sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) would be positioned at a first predetermined distance (d1) from each other and at a second predetermined distance (d2) from the longitudinal axis, the second predetermined distance (d2) equivalent to one half of the first predetermined distance (d1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in including a single sled in the enclosure, to position the sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) at a first predetermined distance (d1) from each other and at a second predetermined distance (d2) from the longitudinal axis, the second predetermined distance (d2) equivalent to one half of the first predetermined distance (d1), as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Mount teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements) are positioned base (100; first plane) (Fig. 1). The sled stop brackets are necessarily positioned at a third predetermined distance from each other.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mount (US 2003/0039881 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newman (US 2017/0225588 A1), cited on IDS.
Regarding claims 9-10, Mount teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Mount does not expressly teach a first interlocking element included on the outer surface of the battery adapted to engage with a second interlocking element on the inner surface of the cabinet (casing) to lock the battery into the cabinet (casing). Mount additionally does not expressly teach a switch electrically coupled to the first and second interlocking elements, adapted to be manually or remotely operated to lock and release the first and second interlocking elements.
Newman teaches a modular battery assembly for an electric vehicle (¶ [0002], Ln. 1-3). Battery packs (20) are positioned in the chassis and each battery pack includes a pair of longitudinal sides (40) and transverse ends (42) (¶ [0033]; Ln. 1-8). Each battery pack (20) is shaped to fit into a bay (22; casing) of the chassis of the vehicle and is movable into and out of the bay (22) to facilitate attachment and removal of the battery pack (20) from the vehicle (battery pack adapted to be slidably disposed within the casing) (¶ [0024], Ln. 1-5). A plurality of cross rails (36; first rail elements) separate the bay into a plurality of bays (22A) and are located within the frame (30; casing) (¶ [0026]; Ln. 1-5). Adjoining battery packs form channels (46; second guide elements) which are configured to receive a cross rail (36; first rail elements) (¶ [0037], Ln. 5). Newman additionally teaches that an attachment mechanism (24) releasably attaches the battery pack (20) to the chassis. A plurality of first attachment parts (26) are located on the chassis and a plurality of second attachment parts (28) are located on each battery pack (20). The first and second attachment parts are connectable to secure each battery pack (20) into the bay (22) (¶ [0024], Ln. 5-12). Newman further teaches that the attachment parts (26, 28) may form a latching mechanism including a striker positioned on the battery pack (20) and a receiving member with a latching hook positioned on the chassis, or a striker positioned on the chassis and a receiving member with a latching hook positioned on the battery pack (20). Newman teaches that the latching hook may be remotely and/or electronically controllable in order to allow for ease of attachment and detachment of the battery pack (20) (¶ [0035], Ln. 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery enclosure of Mount to include an attachment mechanism including a first attachment part including a striker on the cabinet (casing) and a second attachment part including a latching look on the outer surface of the battery as taught by Newman. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include an additional attachment mechanism in order to better secure the batter within the cabinet (casing). Additionally, it would have been obvious to remotely and/or electronically control the latching hook as taught by Newman. One would be motivated to make the latching hook remotely or electronically controlled to allow for ease of attachment and detachment of the battery.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mount (US 2003/0039881 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Power, et al. (US 2013/0177795 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Mount teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Mount does not expressly teach that the cabinet (casing) includes a plurality of air vents located on at least one of the base (100; first plane), right side bracket (102R; second plane), left side bracket (102L; fourth plane), or top cover (104; third plane) to dissipate heat.
Including vents in a battery case is well-known in the art for dissipating heat. Power teaches a swappable battery pack for an electric vehicle (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-3). Power teaches that the battery packaging includes a housing, and that the housing is configured with at least one cooling vent, such that it provides air cooling to the interior of the housing (¶ [0033], Ln. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cabinet (casing) of Mount to include cooling vents in at least one of the base (100; first plane), right side bracket (102R; second plane), left side bracket (102L; fourth plane), or top cover (104; third plane), as taught by Power. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide cooling air to the interior of the cabinet (casing).
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamidi (US 2010/0181129 A1), cited on IDS.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 16, Hamidi teaches a system for an electric vehicle’s battery pack including multiple battery pack units (12a, 12b, 12c), with each unit comprising a compartment housing (14) and battery carrier rack (22) which is slidable within the compartment housing (¶ [0006], Ln. 1-6). The battery carrier rack (22) carries a plurality of battery packs (16). Each battery pack is placed into a docking enclosure (24; casing) (¶ [0034], Ln. 7-11). As shown in Figures 4 and 6, the docking enclosure includes at least four side planes, and include an open end for the replacing and transferring of a battery pack (¶ [0037], Ln. 3-8), creating a hollow space for the battery pack (16).
The battery pack (16) is nested in the docking enclosure (24; casing) by top and side spring-loaded rollers (34; first rail elements), in which the battery case positions itself with its indentations (36; second guide elements) (¶ [0036], Ln. 1-5). This secures the battery pack (16) in the docking enclosure (24; casing) (the first pair of rail elements of the casing engage with the second pair of guide elements of the battery pack to form a first connection). In this case, the sides are the first and third planes of the docking enclosure (24; casing). The side spring-loaded rollers (34; first rail elements) inherently have a first length (L1).
The docking enclosure (24; casing) has a receptacle connector (30; first connector) which mates with the plug in connector (38; second connector) of the battery pack (16) when the battery pack is pushed in, supplying power to the electric vehicle (¶ [0036], Ln. 7-11) (first connector of the casing is received within the second connector of the battery pack to form a third connection). The connection is made at the end of the docking enclosure (24; casing) (¶ [0036], Ln. 5-7).
Hamidi does not expressly teach that the side spring-loaded rollers (34; first rail elements), in which the battery case positions itself with its indentations (36; second guide elements) are included as pairs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Hamidi to include additional side spring-loaded rollers (34; first rail elements) and therefore additional indentations (36; second guide elements) in order to more securely position the battery pack into the docking enclosure (24; casing). In doing so, the system would include a pair of side spring-loaded rollers (34; first pair of rail elements) and a pair of indentations (36; second pair of guide elements) on the inner surface of the first and third planes of the docking enclosure (24; casing). The duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result in produced (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
Hamidi does not expressly teach that the docking enclosure (24; casing) includes a first pair of guide elements with a second length (L2) which are parallel to the longitudinal axis of one of the first and third planes, or that the battery pack includes a second pair of rail elements defined on the outer surface of the battery pack, so that the first pair of guide elements of the docking enclosure (24; casing) engage with the second pair of rail elements of the battery pack to form a second connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Hamidi to include an additional connection between the battery pack (16) and docking enclosure (24; casing). It would be obvious to include rails on the battery pack (16) and indents in the docking enclosure (24; casing), similar to the existing side spring-loaded rollers (34; first pair of rail elements) of the docking enclosure (24; casing) and indents (36; second pair of guide elements) of the battery pack (16) in order to more securely install the battery pack (16) in the docking enclosure (24; casing). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include additional connections in order to secure the battery pack (16) in the docking enclosure (24; casing).
Regarding claim 2, Hamidi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the top and bottom of the docking enclosure (24; casing) are opposite each other (first plane is opposite the third plane) and the sides of the docking enclosure (24; casing) are opposite each other (second plane is opposite the fourth plane) (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Hamidi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. In including additional indents (first pair of guide elements) on the docking enclosure (24; casing), the indents would necessarily be positioned a predetermined distance from each other in order to support the battery pack.
Regarding claim 8, Hamidi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the bottom of the docking enclosure (24; casing) includes a set of rollers (32; first and second pair of anti-friction members) to roll the battery pack into position with minimum applicable force (facilitate in preventing friction between battery pack and casing) (¶ [0037], Ln. 1-5).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Notes
The previous note regarding reference numbers in the claims is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-12 in the response filed July 14, 2025.
In light of the Applicant’s response clarifying the longitudinal axis, the previous note regarding claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 3 for minor informalities is overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to claim 3 in the response filed July 14, 2025.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
In light of the Applicant’s argument, see page 10 of the remarks filed July 14, 2025, that the language in claim 7 is clear in light of Figure 3, the previous rejections of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 is withdrawn, as the claim indicates the third predetermined distance is d3, which is labeled in the drawings.
The previous rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment to claim 2.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 14-24 of the response filed July 14, 2025 with respect to Mount (US 2003/0039881 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Mount fails to disclose the multiple pairs of rail elements and guide elements and configuration thereof, that Mount fails to disclose the predetermined lengths of the rail elements and guide elements and predetermined distances between elements, that the function and use of the brackets of Mount differ from that of the first connector in the instant application, and that the guide elements taught by Mount are different than those in the instant application.
With respect to the argument, see pages 18-21 of the remarks, that Mount fails to disclose multiple pairs of rail and guide elements and configuration thereof, Mount teaches that the inner surface of the base includes sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) which guide the sled bases, indicating corresponding second guide elements on the sled bases, and further teaches sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements) which provide fastening of the sled bases in a nominal position, indicating corresponding second rail elements on the sled bases (¶ [0172], Ln. 6-13, 22-27; Fig. 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cabinet structure of Mount to include the same sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) and sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements) on the top cover (third plane), and the corresponding second guide elements and second rail elements to the battery sled. The duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result in produced (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)). Including additional rail and guide elements on the top cover would enhance the retention of the sled in the cabinet, which is an obvious and expected result of the duplication of parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that including extra rail and guide elements would improve the stability of the sled. Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the additional rail and guide elements on the top cover in the same configuration as they are included on the bottom cover. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to place the elements in the same spatial configuration as already used on the bottom cover. The Applicant further argues, see page 22 of the remarks, that the brackets (136, 138; first connector) are not defined in between the sled stop brackets. As shown in Figure 1, the brackets (136, 138; first connector) are provided between the sled stop brackets (128) along the width direction of the bottom cover.
With respect to the argument, see pages 16 and 23-25 of the remarks, that Mount fails to disclose the predetermined lengths of the rails and guide elements, as shown in Figure 1, the sled rails and sled stop brackets are shown as individual elements with set dimensions, including predetermined lengths. Further, Figure 1 shows the spatial configuration of the elements in relation to each other. Specifically, the battery enclosure taught by Mount includes two battery sleds on the inner surface of the base which are shown to be symmetrical across the longitudinal axis of the base. In the case that only one battery sled (118) is included in the battery enclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the battery sled (118), and therefore the sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements), would be centered on the base, based on the teachings of Mount that the base (100; first plane) is symmetrical (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in including a single sled in the enclosure, that the sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements) would be positioned at a first predetermined distance (d1) from each other and at a second predetermined distance (d2) from the longitudinal axis, the second predetermined distance (d2) equivalent to one half of the first predetermined distance (d1), as claimed, in order to center the elements. Additionally, as shown in Figure 1, the sled stop brackets (128; first pair of guide elements) are positioned on the base with a distance in between them. This distance constitutes the third predetermined distance.
With respect to the argument, see pages 16-17 of the remarks, that the function and use of the brackets and guide elements of Mount differ from that of the first connector and guide elements in the instant application, Mount teaches that the brackets (136, 138; first connector) provide mounting for electrical connectors, such that when the sled base (118) is inserted into sled rails (126L, 126R; first pair of rail elements), the final position permits the electrical connectors to mate (¶ [0172], Ln. 22-27), indicating that the battery sled contains electrical connectors (second connection), forming a third connection and providing electric power, meeting the claim limitations that the first connector and second connector engage to form a third connection providing electric power to an entity affixed to the casing.
With respect to the argument, see pages 17-18 of the remarks, that the guide elements of Mount are different from the guide elements of the instant application, Mount teaches that the sled stop brackets control the sled bases to a normal position relative to base, effectively guiding the insertion of the sled bases (¶ [0174], Ln. 7-9). The sled bases are also guided by the sled rails attached to the first base, indicating that the sled bases include a guiding element (second guide element) to engage with the sled rails, meeting the limitations of first and second guide elements. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the first and second guide elements are the same type of element) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 25-28 of the response filed July 14, 2025 with respect to Mount in view of Newman (US 2017/0225588 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the structure of Newman is different from the instant application and that the interlocking element of Newman is fundamentally different from the instant application.
With respect to the argument, see pages 26-27 of the remarks, that Newman teaches a structure with a different configuration of bays, cross rails, and channel elements, Newman is used as a secondary reference to teach the electrical switch element adapted to be manually or remotely operated to lock and release the first and second interlocking elements. The teachings of Newman are not used to modify the receiving space for the battery sleds, or rail and guide elements of Mount.
With respect to the argument, see pages 27-28 of the remarks, that the attachment mechanism of Newman is different from the first and second interlocking elements of the instant application, Newman teaches the attachment parts (26, 28) may form a latching mechanism including a striker positioned on the battery pack (20) and a receiving member with a latching hook positioned on the chassis, or a striker positioned on the chassis and a receiving member with a latching hook positioned on the battery pack (20) (¶ [0035], Ln. 1-8). In modifying Mount to include the attachment mechanism, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include a first attachment part including a striker on the cabinet (casing) and a second attachment part including a latching look on the outer surface of the battery, meeting the limitation of a first interlocking element on the surface of the battery adapted to engage with a second interlocking element on the inner surface of the casing. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., locking the elements without requiring a striker or hook) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 29-30 of the response filed July 14, 2025 with respect to Mount in view of Power, et al. (US 2013/0177795 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to include cooling vents in the specified locations based on the teachings of Power.
With respect to the argument that it would not be obvious to include cooling vents in the specified locations, Power teaches including at least one cooling vent on the inner base surface of the housing (¶ [0033], Ln. 1-6). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that as Power teaches including at least one vent, additional vents can be included in battery housings at the surfaces of the housing to provide additional cooling to the battery. Based on the teachings of Power, one of ordinary skill in the art would include the vents on at least one surface of the cabinet of Mount, meeting the limitations that a plurality of air vents are located on at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth plane.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 30-39 of the response filed July 14, 2025 with respect to Hamidi (US 2010/0181129 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Hamidi does not disclose the claimed casing, that the guide and rail elements of Hamidi are fundamentally different from the instant application, that Hamidi does not teach duplicating the rail and guide elements, and that Hamidi does not disclose the connector structures and order of connection of the instant application.
With respect to the argument, see page 31 of the remarks, that Hamidi does not disclose the claimed casing, Hamidi teaches that each battery pack is placed into a docking enclosure (24; casing) (¶ [0034], Ln. 7-11). As shown in Figures 4 and 6, the docking enclosure includes at least four side planes, and include an open end for the replacing and transferring of a battery pack (¶ [0037], Ln. 3-8), creating a hollow space for the battery pack (16).
With respect to the argument, see pages 32-33, 35, and 37-38 of the remarks, that the guide, rail, and antifriction elements of Hamidi are fundamentally different from the instant application, Hamidi teaches that the rollers secure the battery pack in a nested position in the docking enclosure (¶ [0036], Ln. 1-4). Additionally, Hamidi teaches that the battery pack includes indentations for proper positioning with respect to the rollers (¶ [0036], Ln. 4-5). Therefore, the rollers and indentations meet the limitations of the rail and guide elements engaging to form a connection. Further, Hamidi teaches that rollers at the bottom of the docking enclosure roll the battery pack into position with minimum applicable force (¶ [0037], Ln. 1-5). The disclosure that the rollers allow the battery pack to be rolled into position with minimum applicable force indicates smooth transition and a lack of friction in the placement of the battery pack, meeting the limitation of the claimed antifriction members.
With respect to the argument, see pages 34-35 and 37 of the remarks, that Hamidi does not teach duplicating the rail and guide elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Hamidi to include additional side spring-loaded rollers (34; first rail elements) and therefore additional indentations (36; second guide elements) in order to more securely position the battery pack into the docking enclosure (24; casing). In doing so, the system would include a pair of side spring-loaded rollers (34; first pair of rail elements) and a pair of indentations (36; second pair of guide elements) on the inner surface of the first and third planes of the docking enclosure (24; casing). Additionally, it would be obvious to include rollers on the battery pack (16) and indents in the docking enclosure (24; casing), similar to the existing side spring-loaded rollers (34; first pair of rail elements) of the docking enclosure (24; casing) and indents (36; second pair of guide elements) of the battery pack (16) in order to more securely install the battery pack (16) in the docking enclosure (24; casing). The duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result in produced (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)). Including additional rollers and indentations would enhance the retention of the battery pack in the docking, which is an obvious and expected result of the modification. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that including extra rollers and indentations would improve the stability of the battery pack. Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the additional elements would be a predetermined distance from each other. The indentations are used to guide the battery pack into position, and therefore have a set distance between them in order to support the battery pack.
With respect to the argument, see pages 32-33 and 35-36 of the remarks, that Hamidi does not disclose the connector structures and order of connection, Hamidi teaches that the battery pack is nested in the docking enclosure by top and side spring-loaded rollers (34; first rail elements), in which the battery case positions itself with its indentations (36; second guide elements) (¶ [0036], Ln. 1-5), forming the first connection. Further, as detailed above, it would be obvious to include rollers on the battery pack and indents in the docking enclosure, similar to the existing rollers of the docking enclosure and indents of the battery pack in order to more securely install the battery pack in the docking enclosure, forming a subsequent second connection. As Hamidi teaches that the receptacle connector (30; first connector) mates with the plug in connector (38; second connector) of the battery pack (16) when the battery pack is pushed in (¶ [0036], Ln. 7-11), the third connection is made once the battery pack is pushed in, and therefore after the first and second connections are made, following the claimed order of connection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785