DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 9/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted January 9, 2023 and March 26, 2024, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
5. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Specification
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para 0029 of the published instant disclosure describes an embodiment that is shown in Fig. 6 but is incorrectly attributed to Fig. 7. See 112 rejection below for more details.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim is missing a comma after “The electric vehicle of claim 7”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
8. Claim 6 is 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.
9. Claim 6 recites the presence of guide rails on the battery module and guide tabs on the vehicle battery receiver, such tabs for interfacing with the guide rails. However, the interpretation of this claim is unclear because it is unclear how tabs would interface with rails (both being projections). The instant disclosure (see para 0029 of the published application) describes where the battery module can use guide rails 20 (projections) or slots 20 (channels or recesses) and specifically illustrates an embodiment (shown in Fig. 6 but incorrectly attributed to Fig. 7) wherein the vehicle battery receiver base has guide tabs 30 for interfacing with the one or more guide rails 20. It is unclear how the tabs would interface with rails, since Fig. 6 clearly shows an embodiment using the tabs 30 and guide slots 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki US PG Publication 2014/0319907.
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Yamazaki discloses an electric vehicle 10 comprising a battery module 50 having a battery module connector disposed adjacent to a bottom of the battery module recessed from the bottom of the battery module and shrouded by chamfered edges disposed around the perimeter of the bottom of the battery module (see annotated Fig. below), the battery module connector comprising one or more alignment pin receivers 56 recessed within the bottom surface of the battery module (meeting Claim 7) and battery module connector and necessarily one or more module contacts recessed within the battery module connector in order to make the electrical connection with the battery cells, and a vehicle battery receiver having a vehicle battery connector disposed on the vehicle facing generally upwards for receiving the battery module, the vehicle battery connector at least partially shrouded by chamfered sidewalls (see annotated Fig below) corresponding to the chamfered edges and disposed at least partially around a perimeter of the vehicle battery receiver, one or more pins 42 that are terminals and so are electrical vehicle contacts as well as being alignment pins which correspond to the one or more alignment pin receivers of the battery module connector (see entire disclose and especially Figs 1-4 and paras 0025-0027, 0047, 0050, 0054, 0058, 0067-0068). Yamazaki discusses in para 0025 the use of terminals to position the battery during mounting. Yamazaki does not call the edges shown below “chamfered” but the skilled artisan would understand that this shape that is shown in Yamazaki is considered “chamfered”.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
717
1227
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Yamazaki teaches that the battery module connector is disposed at a center of the bottom of the battery module and the vehicle battery connector is disposed at a center of the vehicle battery receiver (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Yamazaki teaches wherein the battery module includes one or more handles 51 fastened thereto (see Fig. 2). Although Yamazaki does not explicitly recite that the handle is fastened to the module, the skilled artisan would understand that the handle must be fastened to the battery module in order to function as a handle (meeting Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamazaki teaches wherein the battery module 50 has formed thereon one or more guide rails 52 extending along a longitudinal length of the battery module 50, and the vehicle battery receiver has formed thereon corresponding one or more guide recesses 43 for interfacing with the one or more guide rails. Yamazaki also teaches that guide rails 52 can be guide recesses 52 that mate with the vehicle battery receiver’s corresponding guide rails 43 (see Fig. 2 and paras 0057-0059).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
11. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yamazaki US PG Publication 2014/0319907.
Regarding Claim 3, Yamazaki discloses wherein the battery module 50 is comprised of a rectangular tower comprising four longitudinal faces, a top face, and a bottom face, and explicitly shows chamfered edges along two longitudinal edges, but does not specifically show that two other longitudinal faces have a chamfered edge. However, the skilled artisan would expect the same design that is visible for the module on Fig 2 to be replicated on the opposing side of the module, and further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the battery module of Yamazaki such that four longitudinal faces such that the design is consistent all the way around the module for simplification of the overall structure since the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).s
12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki US PG Publication 2014/0319907, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Nishikawa 2019/0260209.
Regarding Claim 8, Yamazaki discloses the claimed electric vehicle as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Yamazaki fails to specifically disclose wherein the recess includes a spring biased pin securing mechanism. However, in the same field of endeavor of exchangeable batteries, Nishikawa discloses wherein when a battery pack is mounted to its electronic device, a spring-biased securing mechanism is used to secure the pins 281/282/271/272 into receiving contacts (see e.g. Fig 17; paras 0107-0115). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the recess of Yamazaki to include a spring-biased pin securing mechanism to assist in engagement between the alignment pins and the alignment pin receivers of Yamazaki because Nishikawa teaches that this type of mechanism is known and can be effective in making secure electrical connections between terminal pins and devices. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
13. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki US PG Publication 2014/0319907, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Adachi US PG Publication 2012/0100399.
Regarding Claim 9, Yamazaki discloses the claimed electric vehicle as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Yamazaki fails to specifically disclose wherein the battery module is comprised of a metal casing (such as aluminum). However, in the same field of endeavor of battery module design for e.g. vehicles, Adachi teaches that battery casing is desirably formed of a high heat transfer material for the upper casing (such as aluminum), including upper cover 2a (see entire disclosure and especially para 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the battery module of Yamazaki from metal casing such as aluminum because Adachi teaches that this improves heat management. Although Yamazaki does not specifically disclose a separate cover or lid from the rest of the body, the skilled artisan would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the housing of Yamazaki from a two-part casing using upper and lower casings 2a/2b because e.g. this would allow for the battery parts to be assembled. The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
14. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki US PG Publication 2014/0319907, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Vasefi US PG Publication 2018/0241236.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Yamazaki discloses the claimed electric vehicle as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Yamazaki fails to specifically disclose the electric vehicle comprises a safety switch disposed on the battery module or the electric vehicle body wherein the safety switch is engaged to indicate the battery module connector is fully connected to the battery vehicle connector or wherein the safety switch activates a signal which sends connection confirmation to a control interface in the electric vehicle to indicate the battery module connector is fully connected to the battery vehicle connector. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery module design for e.g. vehicles, Vasefi teaches that in a swappable battery design, a signal can be sent to a controller from a communication interface and would be capable of indicating connection between the power interface and the battery and can send information to a control/communication interface 138 and that these are important functions of a hot swappable battery system which allows battery swap without the down time usually needed for such an exchange (see e.g. paras 0002-0004, 0021-0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the electric vehicle of Yamazaki such that the electric vehicle comprises a safety switch disposed on the battery module or the electric vehicle body wherein the safety switch is engaged to indicate the battery module connector is fully connected to the battery vehicle connector or wherein the safety switch activates a signal which sends connection confirmation to a control interface in the electric vehicle to indicate the battery module connector is fully connected to the battery vehicle connector because Vasefi teaches that these components are important to the function of a hot swappable battery, which allows battery swap without the down time usually needed for such an exchange. Although the prior art may not explicitly recite that the switch engages to indicate that the battery module is fully connected to the battery vehicle connector, this function would be expected from the structure provided by the prior art. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
15. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki US PG Publication 2014/0319907, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Adachi US PG Publication 2012/0100399 and Sukhatankar US PG Publication 2022/0105793.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Yamazaki discloses the claimed electric vehicle as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Yamazaki discloses wherein the electric vehicle includes a securement element (locking mechanism) 44 to secure the battery module connected to the electric vehicle via the top surface 50a of the module 50 (see e.g. Figs 5-6, para 0072) but fails to specifically disclose wherein the electric vehicle includes a securement lid to secure the battery module connected to the electric vehicle, and wherein the securement lid includes a vibration dampener. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery module design for e.g. vehicles, Adachi teaches that battery casing is desirably formed of a high heat transfer material for the upper casing (such as aluminum), including upper cover 2a, and further that a shock absorbing sheet 33 can protect the battery by dampening vibration (para 0044). Although Yamazaki does not specifically disclose a separate cover or lid from the rest of the battery housing body, the skilled artisan would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the housing of Yamazaki from a two-part casing such as that taught by Adachi using upper and lower casings 2a/2b because e.g. this would allow for the battery parts to be assembled in the case. The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Further, Sukhatankar teaches that in electric vehicles, vibrations should be dampened by use of e.g. pads between the battery and its cover or below the batteries (para 00438). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the electric vehicle of Yamazaki modified by Adachi to include a securement lid to secure the battery module connected to the electric vehicle because Yamazaki secures the top of the battery module housing to the vehicle, and because Adachi makes it obvious to use a separate lid and body for the housing, in conjunction with a vibration dampening mechanism, and further obvious to design the vehicle of Yamazaki and Adachi such that the securement lid includes the vibration dampener, because Sukhatankar teaches that in electric vehicles, vibrations should be dampened by use of e.g. pads between the battery and its cover or below the batteries (as functionally equivalent locations).
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawatani US PG Publication 2013/0216885 discloses an electric vehicle 1 comprising a battery module 19 having a battery module connector (insulator) 74 recessed from the bottom of the battery of the battery module and having a chamfered edge (surface) 19c disposed around a perimeter of the bottom of the battery module 19, the battery module connector 74 comprising one or more alignment pin receivers (openings) 745 and one or more module contacts (female-side terminals) 73 recessed within the battery module connector 74, and a vehicle battery receiver (terminal base) 29 having a vehicle battery connector (insulator board) 64 disposed on the vehicle 1 and facing generally upwards for receiving the battery module 19, the vehicle battery connector 64 at least partly shrouded by chamfered sidewalls corresponding to the chamfered edge and disposed at least partially around a perimeter of the vehicle battery receiver 29, one or more alignment pins (wide bases of male-side terminals 63) which correspond to the one or more alignment pin receivers 745 of the battery module connector 74, and one or more vehicle contacts (narrow upper portions of male-side terminals 63) corresponding to the one or more module contacts 73 (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1, 6, 8, 13, 17-26, paras 0008-0020, 0080-0087, 0094-0095, 0113-0136).
“Havocware NPL” (Power Wheels Vehicle 18 Volt Milwaukee Battery Upgrade!, August 8, 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcVdPOUly6Y Havocware NPL discloses an electric vehicle comprising a battery module (Milwaukee M18 battery) having a battery connector disposed adjacent a bottom of the battery module recessed from the bottom of the battery module and shrouded by edges around the perimeter, the connector comprising one or more alignment pins or receivers and one or more conacts recessed within the battery connector, and a vehicle battery receiver having a vehicle battery connector disposed on the vehicle facing generally upwards for receiving the battery module, the vehicle battery connector at least partially shrouded by chamfered sidewalls (see image of adapter with chamfered sidewalls) dispsosed at least partially around a perimeter of the vehicle battery receiver, one or more alignment pins or alignment pin receivers which correspond to the one or more aligntment pin receivers or alignment pins of the battery module connector and one or more vehicle contacts corresponding to the one or more module contacts. See entire video, especially time stamps corresponding to the screenshots below. The M18 battery evidentiary image is taken from a different website: https://www.gearhack.com/myink/ViewPage.php?file=docs/Power%20Tools/Battery%20Conversion/Milwaukee%20M18%20Power%20Tools%20Battery%20Interface
PNG
media_image3.png
501
1328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
717
918
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
508
923
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729