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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In this instance, the limitation “a first edge of a slot in the battery” (in both independent claims 1 and 15) does not have support in the applicants’ originally filed specification nor in the applicants’ drawings, and thus is considered to be new matter. For purposes of examination, the new matter limitation “a slot in the battery” is broadly interpreted as to be used in order to accommodate “the latch in the locked position”, as claimed in independent claims 1 and 15.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 8,094,439), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated February 7, 2023.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, Lin discloses a mobile device and its method of assembly (column 1, line 52 through column 3, line 63; and Figures 1-6), in which the mobile device (100) comprises the following structural features and process steps:
providing a body (housing (20)) defining a first surface (204) and a second surface (202) opposite the first surface (204), as shown in Figures 1 and 2;
providing a cavity (22) defined in the body (20) at the second surface (202) and configured to receive a battery (30) therein, wherein the cavity (22) comprises a first end and a second end (see Figures 1 and 2); and
providing a locking mechanism (latching mechanism (10)) coupled with the cavity (22) of the body (20), wherein the locking mechanism (10) comprises a latch (16) having an end and being configured to move between an unlocked position and a locked position at which the locking mechanism (10) is configured to secure the battery (30) within the cavity (22) in an instance in which the battery (30) is received by the cavity (22), wherein the cavity (22) and the locking mechanism (10) are configured to prevent a contact between the battery (30) and the locking mechanism (10) that results in movement of the locking mechanism (10) from the locked position to the unlocked position, wherein the end of the locking mechanism (10) is not in contact with the battery (30) in the locked position and in the unlocked position (see Figures 2-4 and 6). Furthermore, and as broadly interpreted in the “locked position”, a first distance between the battery and the end of the latch is greater than a second distance between the battery and the first end of the cavity, preventing a movement of the battery from causing the locking mechanism to move from the locked position to the unlocked position. In this instance, the examiner is interpreting Figures 3 and 6 of Lin et al. for the distance interpretation of relative relation on how the latch and the battery are to be locked to one another.
As to the “new matter” limitation (in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection above) pertaining to “a slot in the battery”, Lin discloses a slot (342) in Figure 6, wherein the slot (342) assists in operably latching the battery securely (see column 3, lines 52-56), wherein the end of the locking mechanism (10) is receivable in the “slot in the battery” when the locking mechanism (10) is in the locked position.
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses that the latch (16) is configured to translate relative to the body (20) from the locked position to the unlocked position at which the latching element (164) of the latch (16) projects at least partially into the cavity (22) and the unlocked position at which the latch (16) is at least partially retracted from the cavity (22), as shown in Figures 2, 3, and 6.
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses that the cavity (22) is dimensioned to limit movement of the battery (30) in a first plane, wherein the first plane is parallel with respect to at least one of the first surface (204) or the second surface (202) of the body (20), as shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses that the latch (16) is configured to limit movement of the battery (30) in the second plane while in the locked position, wherein the second plane is perpendicular to the first plane (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses that the latch (16) is configured to project in the first plane into the corresponding notch (342) of the battery (30) such that a first distance is defined between an end of the latch (16) and the battery (30) in the first plane (see Figures 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses that a battery cover is removably attached to cover the battery (30) on an inner side of the second surface (202) of the body (20) in order to cover the cavity (22), as shown in Figures 1, 2, and 5.
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses that the cavity (22) defines a first end supporting the locking mechanism (10) such that, in the locked position and in an instance in which the battery (30) is received by the cavity (22), the latching element (164) of the latch (16) in the locking mechanism (10) engages a corresponding first end of the battery (30), as shown in Figure 4.
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses that the cavity (22) defines a second end opposite the first end, the second end defines one or more extensions configured to, in an instance in which the battery (30) is received by the cavity (22), engage a second end of the battery (30) opposite the first end of the battery (30), as shown in Figures 1, 2, and 4.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 8,094,439).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses the features of claims 1 and 8, but fails to explicitly teach a pair of latches supported by the first end of the cavity and configured to, in the locked position, collectively engage a corresponding notch defined by the battery.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adding another similar latch to provide two securing latches would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success, since Lin discloses a latch for securing the battery, as set forth in the combination of claims 1 and 8. In this instance, addition of a duplicate latch would provide even further securing means to hold the battery, which is merely a design choice of routine experimentation with predictable results. Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ after final amendment entered upon filing of the request for continued examination received by the USPTO on December 15, 2025 and January 14, 2026, respectively. The amendments to independent claims 1 and 15 raise new 35 USC 112(a) rejections based on inclusion of new matter. Claims 1, 3-10, and 15 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-10, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the argument pertaining to the new limitations has been addressed in the newly underlined portions applied above in the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection addressing the applicants’ amendments to independent claims 1 and 15.
Conclusion
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 February 4, 2026