DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-02-27, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melone (US Patent No. 4,034,788 to Melone) in view of Kindell (US Patent No. 3,626,357 to Kindell et al.) and White (US 2021/0175480 to White et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Melone teaches:
an assembly comprising a washer 25 including a first serrated surface on the underside and a second serrated surface 24 on the topside, the second serrated surface configured to mate with a serrated surface 29 of a fastener head 16 (column 3, Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
427
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Melone does not teach
a battery enclosure, and wherein the fastening assembly is explicitly described as “grounding”
the first serrated surface configured to remove a non-conductive coating from the battery enclosure
Fasteners were routinely used in the battery housing arts, to fasten e.g. covers to frame stanchions, as taught in White (see Fig. 3B).
PNG
media_image2.png
396
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use a fastener like that taught in Melone in a battery enclosure like that taught in White, since Melone teaches the fastener’s use in a broad range of contexts. 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). Moreover, the housing of White is a grounded structure as part of a vehicle frame, and the fastener of Melone would therefore, functionally speaking, be a grounding assembly when used in such an enclosure.
Melone does teach projecting teeth 27/28 on the bottom surface of the washer that would be expected to scratch and deform softer layers on the underlying surface. Melone would therefore be “configured to remove a non-conductive coating” from a battery enclosure like that in White, insofar as it was capable of removing a non-conductive coating on the enclosure. 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.
Melone also does not teach:
a seal disposed on the washer and located on the first serrated surface facing the battery enclosure, thereby forming a watertight barrier between the washer and the battery enclosure
Kindell, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a connecting washer provided with projections to scrape a surface of a metal part to make electrical connection (abstract), teaches providing grooves in the lower face of the washer, on the same surface as rough serration 5 for scratching the opposing surface, which feature rubber O-ring seals 11/12 to preserve the electrical contact surface from water and oxygen (Figs. 1 and 2, column 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
624
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide the bottom surface of the washer of Melone with a serrated and grooved surface like that in Kindell, containing a seal, with the motivation of protecting the newly formed electrical contact region from corrosion.
Regarding Claim 2, Melone teaches:
metal components forming an electrical connection
Regarding Claim 3, White renders obvious:
a stanchion fixture disposed in the battery enclosure, and configured to ground the battery enclosure in virtue of being in electrical contact with the rest of the frame (Fig. 3B)
It would have been obvious to use a fastener like that taught in Melone in a battery enclosure like that taught in White, since Melone teaches the fastener’s use in a broad range of contexts. 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 4, Kindell renders obvious:
a second grooved opening with a second seal disposed therein (Figs. 1-2)
It would have been obvious to provide the bottom surface of the washer of Melone with a serrated and grooved surface like that in Kindell, containing a seal, with the motivation of protecting the newly formed electrical contact region from corrosion.
Regarding Claims 5-7, Melone teaches:
the second surface including serrations having slopes on one side and vertical sides on the other, allowing rotation in one direction along the slopes, and inhibiting rotation in the other direction (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 8, Melone teaches:
a friction fit with threading, as was conventional in the art
Regarding Claims 9-10, Kindell renders obvious:
grooved openings on the bottom surface of the washer with elastomeric seals disposed therein (Figs. 1-2, column 2)
It would have been obvious to provide the bottom surface of the washer of Melone with a serrated and grooved surface like that in Kindell, containing a seal, with the motivation of protecting the newly formed electrical contact region from corrosion.
Regarding Claim 11, Melone teaches:
a first serrated surface with teeth configured to scratch a non-conductive coating off an enclosure
White further teaches steel components (¶ 0036) which would form an electrically conductive connection between the fastener and the frame/stanchion. It would have been obvious to use a fastener like that taught in Melone in a battery enclosure like that taught in White, since Melone teaches the fastener’s use in a broad range of contexts. 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 12, White renders obvious:
a stanchion fixture disposed in the battery enclosure, and configured to ground the battery enclosure in virtue of being in electrical contact with the rest of the frame (Fig. 3B)
It would have been obvious to use a fastener like that taught in Melone in a battery enclosure like that taught in White, since Melone teaches the fastener’s use in a broad range of contexts. 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).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melone (US Patent No. 4,034,788 to Melone) in view of Kindell (US Patent No. 3,626,357 to Kindell et al.) and White (US 2021/0175480 to White et al.), in further view of Bucciferro (US Patent No. 7,597,516 to Bucciferro et al.).
Regarding Claim 13, Melone teaches:
an assembly comprising a washer 25 including a first serrated surface on the underside and a second serrated surface 24 on the topside, the second serrated surface configured to mate with a serrated surface 29 of a fastener head 16 (column 3, Fig. 1)
Melone does not teach
a battery enclosure having a battery, the enclosure including an electrically conductive surface and a non-conductive coating dispose don the surface
wherein the fastening assembly is explicitly described as “grounding”
the first serrated surface configured to remove a non-conductive coating from the battery enclosure
Fasteners were routinely used in the battery housing arts, enclosing battery packs for vehicles, to fasten e.g. covers to frame stanchions, as taught in White (see Fig. 3B). It would have been obvious to use a fastener like that taught in Melone in a battery enclosure like that taught in White, since Melone teaches the fastener’s use in a broad range of contexts. 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). Moreover, the housing of White is a grounded structure as part of a vehicle frame, and the fastener of Melone would therefore, functionally speaking, be a grounding assembly when used in such an enclosure.
Melone does teach projecting teeth 27/28 on the bottom surface of the washer that would be expected to scratch and deform softer layers on the underlying surface. Melone would therefore be “configured to remove a non-conductive coating” from a battery enclosure like that in White, insofar as it was capable of removing a non-conductive coating on the enclosure. 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.
It was also conventional in the art to use teeth on the interfacial surfaces of fasteners to remove coatings like paint from the fastened surface to form a grounding connection, as taught by Bucciferro (abstract, column 1). It would have been obvious to provide a corrosion-resistant coating, such as paint or an oxidized layer, on the enclosure of White with the motivation to prevent corrosion of the enclosure and frame. The teeth of the washer assembly in Melone would then be expected to remove that coating, and forming a grounding connection, as was conventional in the art, and suggested by at least Bucciferro. For further evidence of ordinary skill in the art, see Volonta (US Patent No. 4,873,763) discussing grounding in vehicle frames, and Schluter (US Patent No. 8,070,404) teaches a scratching washer for forming a grounding connection.
Melone also does not teach:
a seal disposed on the washer and located on the first serrated surface facing the battery enclosure, thereby forming a watertight barrier between the washer and the battery enclosure
Kindell, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a connecting washer provided with projections to scrape a surface of a metal part to make electrical connection (abstract), teaches providing grooves in the lower face of the washer, on the same surface as rough serration 5 for scratching the opposing surface, which feature rubber O-ring seals 11/12 to preserve the electrical contact surface from water and oxygen (Figs. 1 and 2, column 2). It would have been obvious to provide the bottom surface of the washer of Melone with a serrated and grooved surface like that in Kindell, containing a seal, with the motivation of protecting the newly formed electrical contact region from corrosion.
Regarding Claim 14, White renders obvious:
a battery housing, in contact with batteries, and grounded through a vehicle frame
It would have been obvious to use a fastener like that taught in Melone in a battery enclosure like that taught in White, since Melone teaches the fastener’s use in a broad range of contexts. 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 15, Melone teaches:
the washer including two serrated opposite surfaces (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 16, Melone teaches:
the second surface including serrations having slopes on one side and vertical sides on the other, allowing rotation in one direction along the slopes, and inhibiting rotation in the other direction (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claims 17 and 20, Kindell renders obvious:
grooved openings on the bottom surface of the washer with elastomeric seals disposed therein (Figs. 1-2, column 2)
It would have been obvious to provide the bottom surface of the washer of Melone with a serrated and grooved surface like that in Kindell, containing a seal, with the motivation of protecting the newly formed electrical contact region from corrosion.
Regarding Claim 18, White renders obvious:
a stanchion fixture disposed in the battery enclosure, and configured to ground the battery enclosure in virtue of being in electrical contact with the rest of the frame (Fig. 3B)
It would have been obvious to use a fastener like that taught in Melone in a battery enclosure like that taught in White, since Melone teaches the fastener’s use in a broad range of contexts. 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 19, Melone teaches:
a threaded friction fit between the assembly and the surface, as was conventional in the art
See also White for conventional skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-02-27 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. In response to the instant amendments, the rejections have been modified to rely on Kindell, which renders obvious a washer with a serrated surface for forming an electrical contact, the serrated surface having grooves with elastomeric seals for protecting the electrical contact region from corrosion.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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