DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. In response to the amendment received on 4/15/2026:
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended, Claim 10 is cancelled, and Claims 14-20 stand withdrawn.
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous objection to the claims has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous prior art-based rejections have been maintained in light of the amendment (although the rejection under 35 USC 102(a) has been overcome) and the rejections are reworded only to reflect the amendment. The same prior art is relied upon. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Yamazaki US PG Publication 2014/0319907 in view of Vasefi US PG Publication 2018/0241236.
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
484
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
468
799
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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).
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 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
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Yamazaki teaches wherein the battery module includes one or more handles 51 fastened thereto (see Fig. 2). Although Yamazaki modified by Vasefi 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).
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki US PG Publication 2014/0319907 in view of Vasefi US PG Publication 2018/0241236, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Nishikawa 2019/0260209.
Regarding Claim 8, Yamazaki modified by Vasefi discloses the claimed electric vehicle as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Yamazaki modified by Vasefi 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 and Vasefi 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.).
7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki US PG Publication 2014/0319907 in view of Vasefi US PG Publication 2018/0241236, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Adachi US PG Publication 2012/0100399.
Regarding Claim 9, Yamazaki modified by Vasefi discloses the claimed electric vehicle as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Yamazaki modified by Vasefi 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 modified by Vasefi from metal casing such as aluminum because Adachi teaches that this improves heat management. Although Yamazaki modified by Vasefi and Adachi 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 modified 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.).
8. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki US PG Publication 2014/0319907 in view of Vasefi US PG Publication 2018/0241236, 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 modified by Vasefi 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 modified Yamazaki 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 modified by Vasefi and Adachi 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 Vasefi and 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, Vasefi, 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).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments directed at claim 1
10. Applicant argues that “Vasefi does not describe, nor does the Examiner cite any language, that the interface between the data interface 138 of each of the battery packs 100 and the respective communication interface 34 of the power supply device 10 is engaged only when the battery pack 100 is electrically connected to the main power bus 20. Therefore, the combination of Yamazaki and Vasefi does not disclose or suggest the amended claim feature of "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 electrically connected to the battery vehicle connector."
The Office has considered this argument and respectfully disagrees. It is submitted that the argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. There is nothing in the claim that requires the interface between data interface 138 and respective communication interface 34 to be engaged only when the battery pack 100 is electrically connected to the main power bus. Rather, the structure of Yamazaki modified by Vasefi is such that the safety switch would be capable of indicating that the battery module connector is fully electrically connected to the battery vehicle connector.
Accordingly, such an argument is not found to be persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Conclusion
11. 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 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
Prosecution Insights