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 .
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.
Claims 7-11, 13, and 14 are 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the pack electrical connectors" in the 2nd line from the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “connectors” with “connector” to obtain proper antecedent basis with “a pack electrical connector” in the 8th line of claim 7. Since claims 8-11, 13, and 14 depend from claim 7, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urschel et al. (US 2014/0210399), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated February 9, 2023, and further in view of WO 2020/219760 A1, of which a complete copy of the reference was provided with the Office Action mailed June 4, 2026, and further in view of WO 2020/198486 A1, of which a complete copy of the reference was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated February 9, 2023.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, Urschel et al. disclose a removable and replaceable battery power pack as part of a battery power system (see paragraphs [0026]-[0060]; and Figures 1-6), in which the battery pack (100) comprises the following structural features:
a plurality of battery cells (180), as shown in Figures 4 and 5;
an outer housing (104) configured to encase the plurality of battery cells (180), as shown in Figure 3;
a handle (106) extending from the outer housing (104) configured to be grasped by a user (see Figures 3-5);
a pack electrical connector (102) located on a rear side of the outer housing (104), wherein the electrical connector (102) includes at least one battery pack receptacle that can electrically couple to a battery receptacle connector (202) comprising a plurality of ports and configured to electrically couple to the pack electrical connector (102) of the battery pack (100), and a latch (interpreted as pins inside the connector (102) that can selectively couple to the battery pack (100) (see paragraphs [0026], [0027], and [0060]; and Figures 3-6), wherein the battery pack receptacle; and
a plurality of MOSFETs (137) configured to control a current output to the electrical connector (102), wherein each of the plurality of MOSFETs (137) is thermally coupled to the outer housing (104), as shown in Figure 5.
Urschel et al. disclose the removable and replaceable battery power pack as part of a battery power system, but do not disclose that the outer housing (104) is fabricated from a die cast aluminum material, instead reciting a lightweight injection molded plastic (see paragraph [0029]).
However, WO ‘760 discloses a removable and replacement battery pack (abstract; paragraph [0034]; and Figure 2), in which the battery pack (114) includes a case (116) and a battery (120) disposed in the case (116), wherein the case (116) is made of a semi-rigid and lightweight material, including aluminum, for the purpose of providing a small (carbon) footprint and conserving weight, including at a weight of the case to be about 21% of the weight of a battery, thus increasing service life of the battery operated device between charges (see paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to modify the lightweight injection molded plastic material of the outer housing of the removable and replaceable battery power pack as part of a battery power system, as disclosed by Urschel et al., by providing a material of the battery pack with a case made of a semi-rigid and lightweight material, including aluminum, in order to provide a small (carbon) footprint and to conserve weight, including at a weight of the case to be about 21% of the weight of a battery, thus increasing service life of the battery operated device between charges (WO ‘760; paragraph [0034]).
In addition, the limitation of a “die cast aluminum material” for a case of a battery pack is evidenced by CN 106856231 A (see the sentence in the middle of page 4 of the machine translation of CN ‘231 that recites “the case 1 can be made of aluminum alloy or magnesium alloy by die-casting” – Figures 1-3 of CN ‘231 show the case 1).
Furthermore, use of an aluminum material is provided in the teachings of CN 110190228 A (see the sentence in the middle of page 5 of the machine translation of CN ‘228 that recites “in the actual execution, the battery pack case 110 is made of aluminum alloy material, aluminum alloy material with heat conducting performance is good, and density is small and the weight is light, the price is cheap” – Figure 2 of CN ‘228 shows the battery pack case 110).
The combined teachings of Urschel et al. and WO ‘760 fail to teach the new limitations of the handle being “arranged above a top side of the outer housing” and that the electrical connector on the outer housing is “orthogonal to the top side”.
However, WO ‘486 discloses a modular battery assembly (abstract; paragraphs [0055]-[0061]; and Figures 1A, 4 and 6), in which the modular battery assembly (100) includes a handle (111) arranged above a top side of the outer housing (casing (117) – see Figures 1A and 4), as well as an electrical connector (175) that is orthogonal to the top side (see Figures 4 and 6), in which the locations of the handle and the electrical connector are advantageous for improving adaptability of connector location and orientation (see abstract and paragraph [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the locations of the handle and the electrical connector, as taught by WO ‘486, into the combined teachings of Urschel et al. and WO ‘760, in order to change the connector location and orientation for improved adaptability purposes (WO ‘486; abstract; and paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Urschel et al. disclose a battery management system (136) configured to control the plurality of MOSFETs (137) to maintain a current output within a threshold by applying pulse width modulation to the current output (see paragraphs [0039]-[0044]; and Figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Urschel et al. and WO ‘760 disclose and/or suggest that the removable and replaceable battery pack would weigh less than thirty pounds (see paragraph [0028] of Urschel et al., as well as paragraph [0034] of WO ‘760).
Regarding claim 4, Urschel et al. disclose that the battery pack (100) can supply at least 1.5 kilowatt-hours of energy due to the desired combination of the number of battery cells (180), nominal voltage, and continuous current output (see paragraphs [0057]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 5, Urschel et al. disclose a user interface (display screen (142)) configured to display a battery information, wherein the user interface (142) is positioned at a top side of the outer housing (104) under a handle (106), as shown in Figures 3 and 5.
Regarding claims 16 and 20, Urschel et al. disclose a battery management system (136) configured to control the plurality of MOSFETs (137) to maintain a current output within a threshold by applying pulse width modulation to the current output, and can send a bi-directional current into and out of the electrical connector to diagnose an error (see paragraphs [0039]-[0044]; and Figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, and in referring to independent claim 15 above, the combined teachings of Urschel et al. and WO ‘760 disclose and/or suggest that the removable and replaceable battery pack would weigh less than thirty pounds (see paragraph [0028] of Urschel et al., as well as paragraph [0034] of WO ‘760).
Regarding claim 18, Urschel et al. disclose that the battery pack (100) can supply at least 1.5 kilowatt-hours of energy due to the desired combination of the number of battery cells (180), nominal voltage, and continuous current output (see paragraphs [0057]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 19, Urschel et al. disclose a user interface (display screen (142)) configured to display a battery information, wherein the user interface (142) is positioned at a top side of the outer housing (104) under a handle (106), as shown in Figures 3 and 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11, 13, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest a battery power system (of independent claim 7, from which claims 8-11, 13, and 14 depend), in which the battery power system includes the following structural features:
a pack electrical connector located on a rear side of the outer housing, the pack electrical connector comprising a plurality of ports;
a receptacle electrical connector comprising a plurality of ports and configured to electrically couple to the pack electrical connector of a respective one of one or more removable and replaceable battery packs; and
a latch assembly including a lever configured to pivotably move and enable a connection between a respective one of the pack electrical connector and the receptacle electrical connector.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment received by the USPTO on September 4, 2026. Although the applicants’ amendments to independent claims 1 and 15 overcome the prior 35 USC 103 rejection provided in the non-final Office Action mailed June 4, 2026, a new 35 USC 103 rejection is provided in view of the reference to WO 2020/198486 A1 (see above section 4). Although a new 35 USC 112(b) rejection is applied in view of the amendments to independent claim 7 (see above section 2), the applicants’ amendments to independent claim 7 also overcome the prior art rejections, and thus claims 7-11, 13, and 14 are newly indicated as allowable subject matter (see above sections 5 and 6). Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-20 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new reference to WO 2020/198486 A1, including in the newly underlined portions of the above 35 USC 103 rejection, and thus does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicants' 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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 September 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights