DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2026-01-27.
Claims 1-20 are pending; claim 16-20 are withdrawn; claims 1-15 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houck (US Patent No. 7,090,533 to Houck et al.) in view of Krueger (US 2019/0221793 to Krueger et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Houck teaches:
a peripheral component assembly 10 rotatably secured within a mounting opening 18 of the wall (Figs., column 4)
PNG
media_image1.png
980
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
914
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the peripheral component assembly includes a backing plate 50 that interfaces with an interior side of the wall and a twist lock 44/46/48 that that interfaces with an exterior surface of the wall (Figs. 2-7, column 4 lines 63-67)
Houck does not explicitly teach a traction battery pack with an outer enclosure assembly forming the wall. Krueger, however, regarding a traction battery pack, teaches an enclosure with a wall, having a port for an I/O connector 92 that goes through the outer wall (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
554
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the rotatable assembly of Houck as an interconnect for forming a sealed electrical connector that extends through the wall of the battery pack enclosure of Krueger, with the motivation to form a sealed I/O connector port that reliably interlocks through ports (see e.g. the discussion of the advantages of the rotatable twist lock connector in columns 2-3 of Houck). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 2, Krueger teaches:
wherein the wall is part of an enclosure tray of the outer enclosure assembly (Figs.)
It would have been obvious to use the rotatable assembly of Houck as an interconnect for forming a sealed electrical connector that extends through the wall of the battery pack enclosure of Krueger, with the motivation to form a sealed I/O connector port that reliably interlocks through ports (see e.g. the discussion of the advantages of the rotatable twist lock connector in columns 2-3 of Houck). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 3, Krueger teaches:
wherein the wall is part of an enclosure cover (Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to use the rotatable assembly of Houck as an interconnect for forming a sealed electrical connector that extends through the wall of the battery pack enclosure of Krueger, with the motivation to form a sealed I/O connector port that reliably interlocks through ports (see e.g. the discussion of the advantages of the rotatable twist lock connector in columns 2-3 of Houck).
Regarding Claim 4, Houck teaches:
the peripheral component assembly is rotatable between an alignment position and an engagement position relative to the mounting opening (column 4, Figs. 3-7)
Regarding Claim 5, Houck teaches:
wherein in the alignment position, a mounting tab 48 is received within the keyway 22 (column 4 lines 48-62)
Regarding Claim 6, Houck teaches:
wherein the slot 22 extends radially outward of an outer circumference of the mounting opening 18 (Fig. 7, column 4)
Regarding Claim 7, Houck teaches:
wherein in the engagement position the mounting tab 48 is angularly displaced from the slot and positioned to engage the exterior surface of the wall (Fig. 7, columns 4-5)
Regarding Claim 8, Houck teaches:
wherein the backing plate 50 is spaced a distance “t” from the mounting tabs of the twist lock slightly greater than a thickness of the wall, and includes a groove 52 with a seal 53 that forms a tight seal with the wall, indicating that the actual distance them is equal when properly sealed (top of column 5)
The Office notes that the instant specification indicates that “equal” is intended to mean “about equal,” or not exact, “reflecting acceptable tolerances, conversion factors, measurement error, etc.” (Instant PGPUB US 2024/0113363 at ¶ 0053). Houck is interpreted to teach “equal” within the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and teaches a distance “equal” to the backing plate when accounting for the seal, substantially similar to the instant invention (compare Instant Fig. 4. showing inexact gap 68 and seal 56 contacting the wall surface 48).
Regarding Claim 9, Houck teaches:
a plurality of protrusions from the back plate (Fig. 7)
The term “assembly aids” is interpreted broadly as a possible method of use for what are defined in essential, positive structural terms as “protrusions” from the backing plate. That is, “assembly aids” is interpreted as an arbitrary name for protrusions, that does not impact any intrinsic positive structural features in its own right. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F. 3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 10, Houck teaches:
wherein the backing plate includes a groove 52 with a face seal 53 received within the groove and configured to seal an interface between the backing plate and the interior surface of the wall (Fig. 7, column 4)
Regarding Claim 12, Houck teaches:
wherein the twist lock is located radially outward of a peripheral component body (Figs.)
Regarding Claim 13, Houck teaches:
wherein at least a portion (if minimal) of the peripheral component body extends out past the exterior surface of the wall (Fig. 4, showing a thickness to 46 indicating extension)
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Krueger teaches:
a battery array housed in the interior of the housing with I/O connectors 92 having interior components facing the battery pack (Figs. 1-5)
It would have been obvious to use the rotatable assembly of Houck as an interconnect for forming a sealed electrical connector that extends through the wall of the battery pack enclosure of Krueger, with the motivation to form a sealed I/O connector port that reliably interlocks through ports (see e.g. the discussion of the advantages of the rotatable twist lock connector in columns 2-3 of Houck). It further would have been obvious to provide the backing plate on the interior surface of the wall, so that an external connection can be hooked up to the port on the outside. At an even more basic level, the connector can only be inserted one of two ways, both obvious. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houck (US Patent No. 7,090,533 to Houck et al.) in view of Krueger (US 2019/0221793 to Krueger et al.), in further view of Nix (US Patent No. 5,618,204 to Nix et al.).
Regarding Claim 11, Houck does not explicitly teach:
a block-off plate attached to the backing plate
Nix, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a bulkhead connector assembly, teaches an end cap 14 to block the connector opening that can be removed. Such end caps for connectors were otherwise well-known in the art to protect connectors and seal off openings. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to use a block off plate on the backing plate side with the motivation to close and/or protect the I/O port when not connected to an external device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent No. 3,949,217
US Patent No. 4,653,708
US Patent No. 6,634,615
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723