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 Status
Claims 1 – 8 are pending. Claims 1 – 7 were amended. Claim 8 is new.
Comments on claim 4
The Examiner notes that claim 4 includes a single open square bracket “[“ and a single close square bracket “]” in two locations. The Examiner interprets this as a bona-fide attempt to indicate deletion of a comma, using double brackets (as required by 35 CFR 1.121) and is treating this as such.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 6 November 2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: a clean copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied (in addition to the marked-up copy). Examiner notes that the substitute specification lacks a Summary section header, which was present in the as-filed specification; all of the paragraph number have changed; and that the docket number that was present in the as-filed specification is no longer present.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 1 includes the limitations of “a battery port” and “a removable battery”. Claim 7, as amended, includes the limitation of “said battery”. It is unclear if this refers to “a battery port” or “a removable battery”. For the purpose of the instant examination, the Examiner interprets this as “said battery port”.
Response to Arguments
35 USC §112
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claim 4 have been fully considered and resolve the issues of indefiniteness. The rejection of 9 July 2025 has been withdrawn.
35 USC §102
Applicant's arguments filed 6 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (see page 2):
Scaringe et al deals with an electric vehicle system that includes an electric vehicle primary battery for providing electrical power to an electric motor for propelling the vehicle and, an auxiliary battery module that is attachable to the electric vehicle for providing electrical power to the electric motor via a first electrical connector at the auxiliary battery module ....
In addition, Scaringe also requires the presence of a cooling system for his electric vehicle system while the device of the instant invention does not.
Thus, Scaringe et al does not anticipate the device of the instant invention.
Examiner submits that it is not clear what aspect of the invention as claimed is being argued as not taught by Scaringe. Scaringe teaches each and every element of the invention as claimed, and therefore anticipates the invention as claimed. The fact that Scaringe teaches a cooling system in addition to the limitations of the claim is not relevant to analysis of anticipation.
Examiner submits that if the applicant is arguing that the additional features recited by Saringo amount to a species that is distinct from the claimed genus (but this is unclear from the submitted arguments), MPEP 2131.02(I) states
"A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus." The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Gosteli claimed a genus of 21 specific chemical species of bicyclic thia-aza compounds in Markush claims. The prior art reference applied against the claims disclosed two of the chemical species. The parties agreed that the prior art species would anticipate the claims unless applicant was entitled to his foreign priority date.).
35 USC §103
Applicant's arguments filed 6 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (see page 3): Applicant disagrees with the examiner and notes that Scaringe does not teach the battery port of the instant invention as discussed Supra.
Examiner submits that Applicant makes no clear argument against Scaringe in the discussion of the rejection of claim 1. As discussed above, and in the mapping below, Scaringe teaches each and every element of the invention as claimed.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scaringe et al., US 2019/0016231 (hereinafter ‘Scaringe').
Regarding claim 1: Scaringe teaches a battery port (0021; Figs 1A-1C]: second electrical connector 122), comprising:
a housing having a positive lead and a negative lead ([Fig 1B]: second electrical connector 122 comprises “high-voltage connections … 122a, 122b” interpreted as positive and negative electrical leads);
a voltage regulator electrically coupled to said negative lead and said positive lead ([0041]: DC/DC converter 568 I connected to the auxiliary battery model 502 to “manage any voltage differences between the primary battery 552 and the auxiliary battery module 502”);
a voltage monitor electrically coupled to said voltage regulator ([0037; Fig 5A]: controller 554 includes “voltage detection circuitry” used to monitor the auxiliary battery model 502); and
at least a positive contact and a negative contact adapted for coupling with a removable battery ([0017, 0021; Figs 1A, 1B]: second electrical connector 122 comprises “high-voltage connections … 122a, 122b”, interpreted as positive and negative electrical leads, that connect with “high-voltage connections … 120a, 120b”, on first electrical connector 120, which is part of the removable auxiliary electric battery module 102).
Regarding claim 4: Scaringe teaches the battery port of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein
the battery port is adapted for coupling with a removable battery ([0017, 0021; Figs 1A, 1B]: second electrical connector 122 comprises “high-voltage connections … 122a, 122b”, interpreted as positive and negative electrical leads, that connect with “high-voltage connections … 120a, 120b”, on first electrical connector 120, which is part of the removable auxiliary electric battery module 102).
Regarding claim 5: Scaringe teaches the battery port of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein
said voltage monitor includes a monitor for temperature ([0048] discloses that controller 680 “monitors … a second temperature sensor 684 at the auxiliary battery module 602, and detects whether either of those temperature sensors measure an out-of-range temperature condition”).
Regarding claim 6: Scaringe teaches the battery port of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein
said voltage monitor switches between charging and discharging said removable battery ([0037, 0068]: discloses that the auxiliary battery module 502 is monitored by a controller 502 that includes “voltage detection circuitry”, and that “the first electrical connector may also be used to charge the auxiliary battery module”, which is interpreted as allowing the auxiliary battery to be both charged and discharged).
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.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaringe in view of Allag et al., US 2023/0069766.
Regarding claims 2 and 3: Scaringe teaches the battery port of claim 1, as discussed above.
Scaringe is silent with respect to wherein
said voltage regulator coverts 18 volts to 12 volts, or, alternatively,
said voltage regulator coverts 40 volts to 12 volts.
Allag teaches a battery monitoring system for a vehicle ([0018; Fig 1] that includes a voltage regulator ([0020; Fig 1]: HV DC-DC power converter 116) that converts 18 volts to 12 volts ([0020]: “ LV DC-DC power converter 120 converts power from “a 12-volt (V) battery, an 18 V battery, a 40 V battery” to a lower voltage).
While Allag teaches conversion to an exemplary 5 V, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Scaringe in view of Allag to configure a DC-DC power converter to convert a high voltage from a battery system to a usable 12 V, suitable for use by existing, standard 12 V automotive devices.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaringe in view of Rumbaugh et al., US 2020/0136408 (hereinafter 'Rumbaugh').
Regarding claim 7: Scaringe teaches the battery port of claim 1.
Scaringe is silent with respect to wherein
said removable battery port is located in the cabin of a vehicle.
Rumbaugh teaches a detachable power system used for jump-starting a vehicle ([0033, 0036; Fig 1]) that includes
the battery port is located in the cabin of a vehicle ([0032]: discloses locating the auxiliary power system in “a location on a vehicle that would otherwise be unused, such as under a seat.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Scaringe in view of Rumbaugh to allow a flexible placement of the power port and the associated backup battery, to utilize free space within the vehicle.
Regarding claim 8: Scaringe teaches the battery port of claim 4.
Scaringe is silent with respect to wherein
said removable battery is a power tool battery.
Rumbaugh teaches a detachable power system used with a vehicle ([0036; Fig 1]) that includes
a removable battery ([0033]: discloses that the detachable portion of the two-part system could be used “for powering accessories, e.g. tire pump, cell phone, laptop”, which is interpreted as including the ability to include power tools).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Scaringe in view of Rumbaugh to create a flexible power supply system that could be used in multiple scenarios, including jump-starting a car as well as powering portable devices such as power tools, if that were of interest.
Conclusion
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 Brent A Fairbanks whose telephone number is (408)918-7532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 5:30PM PDT.
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, Brent A Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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.
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899