DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 10 August 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 11, 14, 17-20, 24, and 25 have been amended, and claims 1, 4-8, 10, 11, and 14-25 remain pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 August 2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 8,778,530), in view of Nagatani et al. (US 2013/0143092, hereinafter “Nagatani”) and Bhatia et al. (US 2023/0066428; hereinafter “Bhatia”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a stackable battery assembly (battery 100, see Figs. 1-4), comprising:
a battery (electrode assembly 120, see Figs. 3-4; 5:38-41);
a first container (case 110, see Figs. 1-4; 5:38-41); and
a lid (see Figs. 1-4) coupled to the first container (see Figs. 1-4) to form an enclosure around the battery (see Figs. 1-4), the lid comprising:
a plate (cover 170, see Figs. 1-4) defining an upper surface of the lid (see Figs. 1-4); and
a first alignment mechanism comprising:
a first protrusion (second top terminal region 153b, see Figs. 1-4; 7:63-8:2 and 8:50-57) extending orthogonally from the upper surface of the lid (see Figs. 1-4), and configured to enable alignment and nesting of the first alignment mechanism inside a female cavity (inside of second bottom terminal region 153a) of a second container (see Figs. 5A-6B) of a second stackable battery assembly (see Figs. 5A-6B) that is stackable on top of the first container (see Figs. 5A-6B; 9:25-10:25). Kim is silent to a first locking member extending parallel to the upper surface of the lid and configured to translate relative to the first protrusion between a retracted position, in which the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, and an extended position, in which an end portion of the first locking member extends outside of the first protrusion and is configured to engage the second container.
Nagatani teaches that it is known to utilize a locking member (combination of bolt 11 and nut 12, see Fig. 4; [0031]) within a first protrusion (fitting projection 5, see Figs. 3 and 4; [0029]-[0031]) of a first alignment mechanism (see Figs. 3-4). Nagtani teaches that this allows for stacking to be made possible, and a firm stacking without concern about dropping is made possible (see [0031]).
In view of Nagatani’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of Kim to include a locking member within a first protrusion because it allows for firm stacking to be made possible without concern about dropping. Furthermore, the combination of Kim and Nagatani would then result in a locking member extended parallel to the upper surface of the lid.
The combination of Kim and Nagatani is silent to wherein the first locking member is configured to translate relative to the first protrusion between a retracted position, in which the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, and an extended position, in which an end portion of the first locking member extends outside of the first protrusion and is configured to engage the second container.
Bhatia in Fig. 7A illustrates the first interlocking element 170 and the second interlocking element 172. The second interlocking element 172 herein the solenoid includes a spring 174 a plunger 176 and. The spring 174 is in a compressed state (equated to the claimed retracted position) until the complete connection is formed between the casing 110 and the battery pack 150. Immediately after the complete connection is formed between the casing 110 and the battery pack 150, the first interlocking element 170 herein the cut out portion (also shown in FIG. 2) is exposed to the spring 174 of the second interlocking element 172. Due to the hollow nature of the cut out portion of the first interlocking element 170, the spring 174 expands and gets fitted within the cut out portion as shown in FIG. 7A (equated to the claimed extended position), thereby locking the casing 110 with the battery pack 150 and thus forming a locked position (see [0074]).
In view of Bhatia’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of the combination of Kim and Nagatani to include wherein the first locking member is configured to translate relative to the first protrusion between a retracted position, in which the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, and an extended position, in which an end portion of the first locking member extends outside of the first protrusion and is configured to engage the second container because it is a known locking mechanism, and the substitution of a known element (the bolt and nut locking mechanism of the combination of Kim and Nagatani) for another known element (the spring and plunger locking mechanism of Bhatia) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Though the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Bhatia is silent to specifically teaching that the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, its particular placement to be disposed within the first protrusion is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try as there are a finite number of placements for the locking member to be disposed (i.e., either on the first protrusion or as a portion of the wall that cooperates with the first protrusion). Furthermore, disposing the locking member within the polygonal base of the first protrusion would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that in its extended position, the end portion of the first locking member extends outside of polygonal base to cooperate with the corresponding cavity to form the locked position.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Bhatia teaches wherein the first protrusion comprises a base (Kim: ring surrounding second through hole 170b, see Figs. 1-4; 7:63-8:2 and 8:50-57), but is silent to wherein the first protrusion comprises a polygonal base wherein the first locking member is disposed within the polygonal base when the first locking member is in the retracted position, and wherein the first locking member extends outside of the polygonal base when the first locking member is in the extended position. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular shape of the first protrusion’s base is merely a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found to be obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Furthermore, the particular placement of the first locking member to be within the polygonal base is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). Furthermore, disposing the locking member within the polygonal base of the first protrusion would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that in its extended position, the end portion of the first locking member extends outside of polygonal base to cooperate with the corresponding cavity to form the locked position.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Bhatia teaches wherein the first locking member comprises a spring-loaded plunger configured to latch the first alignment mechanism of the first container with the female cavity (Kim: inside of second bottom terminal region 153a) of the second container (Kim: see Figs. 5A-6B) when the first locking member is in the extended position (Bhatia: see Figs. 2, 7A, and [0074]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen teaches wherein the first protrusion comprises a base (Kim: ring surrounding second through hole 170b, see Figs. 1-4; 7:63-8:2 and 8:50-57) and an arcuate dome comprising tapered sides (Nagatani: tapered portion 6 of fitting projection 5, see Figs. 3-4; [0031]), but is silent to wherein the first locking member is disposed within the polygonal base when the first locking member is in the retracted position, and wherein the first locking member extends outside of the polygonal base when the first locking member is in the extended position. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular shape of the first protrusion’s base is merely a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found to be obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Furthermore, the particular placement of the first locking member to be within the polygonal base is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). Furthermore, disposing the locking member within the polygonal base of the first protrusion would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that in its extended position, the end portion of the first locking member extends outside of polygonal base to cooperate with the corresponding cavity to form the locked position.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 8,778,530), in view of Nagatani et al. (US 2013/0143092, hereinafter “Nagatani”) and Chen et al. (CN 216101652 U, hereinafter “Chen”; using US 2024/0083295 for the English translation and citations).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a stackable battery assembly (battery 100, see Figs. 1-4), comprising:
a battery (electrode assembly 120, see Figs. 3-4; 5:38-41);
a first container (case 110, see Figs. 1-4; 5:38-41); and
a lid (see Figs. 1-4) coupled to the first container (see Figs. 1-4) to form an enclosure around the battery (see Figs. 1-4), the lid comprising:
a plate (cover 170, see Figs. 1-4) defining an upper surface of the lid (see Figs. 1-4); and
a first alignment mechanism comprising:
a first protrusion (second top terminal region 153b, see Figs. 1-4; 7:63-8:2 and 8:50-57) extending orthogonally from the upper surface of the lid (see Figs. 1-4), and configured to enable alignment and nesting of the first alignment mechanism inside a female cavity (inside of second bottom terminal region 153a) of a second container (see Figs. 5A-6B) of a second stackable battery assembly (see Figs. 5A-6B) that is stackable on top of the first container (see Figs. 5A-6B; 9:25-10:25). Kim is silent to a first locking member extending parallel to the upper surface of the lid and configured to translate relative to the first protrusion between a retracted position, in which the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, and an extended position, in which an end portion of the first locking member extends outside of the first protrusion and is configured to engage the second container.
Nagatani teaches that it is known to utilize a locking member (combination of bolt 11 and nut 12, see Fig. 4; [0031]) within a first protrusion (fitting projection 5, see Figs. 3 and 4; [0029]-[0031]) of a first alignment mechanism (see Figs. 3-4). Nagtani teaches that this allows for stacking to be made possible, and a firm stacking without concern about dropping is made possible (see [0031]).
In view of Nagatani’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of Kim to include a locking member within a first protrusion because it allows for firm stacking to be made possible without concern about dropping. Furthermore, the combination of Kim and Nagatani would then result in a locking member extended parallel to the upper surface of the lid.
The combination of Kim and Nagatani is silent to wherein the first locking member is configured to translate relative to the first protrusion between a retracted position, in which the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, and an extended position, in which an end portion of the first locking member extends outside of the first protrusion and is configured to engage the second container.
Chen teaches a locking mechanism 20 comprising a fastening bolt and a movable nut, and the fastening bolt is in threaded fit with the movable nut. The locking and unlocking mechanism 20 is configured to screw the fastening bolt into the movable nut to fixedly mount the battery 2000 in the mounting position of the battery 2000, and the locking and unlocking mechanism is configured to unscrew the fastening bolt from the movable nut to unlock the battery 2000 from the vehicle. For example, the locking and unlocking mechanism 20 includes a locking and unlocking driving motor 21 and a bolt sleeve 22. One end of the bolt sleeve 22 is connected to an output end of the locking and unlocking driving motor 21, and the other end of the bolt sleeve 22 fits with the fastening bolt. The locking and unlocking driving motor 21 drives the bolt sleeve 22 to rotate forward or backward to drive the fastening bolt to be screwed into or unscrewed from the movable nut (see Fig. 5 and [0074]).
In view of Chen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of the combination of Kim and Nagatani to include wherein the first locking member is configured to translate relative to the first protrusion between a retracted position, in which the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, and an extended position, in which an end portion of the first locking member extends outside of the first protrusion and is configured to engage the second container because it is a known locking mechanism, and the substitution of a known element (the bolt and nut locking mechanism of the combination of Kim and Nagatani) for another known element (the motorized bolt and nut of Chen) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Though the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen is silent to specifically teaching that the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, its particular placement to be disposed within the first protrusion is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try as there are a finite number of placements for the locking member to be disposed (i.e., either on the first protrusion or the wall of the first alignment receiver that cooperates with the first protrusion). Furthermore, disposing the locking member within the polygonal base of the first protrusion would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that in its extended position, the end portion of the first locking member extends outside of polygonal base to cooperate with the corresponding cavity to form the locked position.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen teaches wherein the first protrusion comprises a base (Kim: ring surrounding second through hole 170b, see Figs. 1-4; 7:63-8:2 and 8:50-57), but is silent to wherein the first protrusion comprises a polygonal base wherein the first locking member is disposed within the polygonal base when the first locking member is in the retracted position, and wherein the first locking member extends outside of the polygonal base when the first locking member is in the extended position. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular shape of the first protrusion’s base is merely a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found to be obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Furthermore, the particular placement of the first locking member to be within the polygonal base is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). Furthermore, disposing the locking member within the polygonal base of the first protrusion would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that in its extended position, the end portion of the first locking member extends outside of polygonal base to cooperate with the corresponding cavity to form the locked position.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen teaches wherein the first locking member comprises a motor-driven plunger configured to latch the first alignment mechanism of the first container (Chen: driven fastening bolt, see [0074]) with the female cavity of the second container (Chen: movable nut, see [0074]) when the first locking member is in the extended position (Chen: see [0074]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches a system (see Figs. 1-5B), comprising:
a first stackable battery assembly (leftmost battery assembly 100, see Figs. 5A and 5B), comprising:
a first battery (electrode assembly 120, see Figs. 3-4; 5:38-41);
a first container (case 110, see Figs. 1-4; 5:38-41); and
a first lid (see Figs. 1-4) coupled to the first container (see Figs. 1-4) to form an enclosure around the first battery (see Figs. 1-4), the lid comprising:
a first plate (cover 170, see Figs. 1-4) defining an upper surface of the first lid (see Figs. 1-4); and
a first alignment mechanism comprising:
a first protrusion extending orthogonally from the upper surface of the first lid (see Figs. 1-4), and
a second stackable battery assembly (battery assembly 100 adjacent to leftmost battery assembly 100, see Figs. 5A and 5B, that is structurally identical to the first battery, see 9:25-10:25) comprising:
a second battery (electrode assembly 120, see Figs. 3-4; 5:38-41);
a second container (case 110, see Figs. 1-4; 5:38-41) comprising a first alignment receiver (second bottom terminal region 153a, see Fig. 1-5B; 7:63-8:2) on a bottom surface of the second container (see Figs. 5A and 5B), the first alignment receiver configured to receive the first alignment mechanism when the second stackable battery assembly is stacked upon the first stackable battery assembly (see Figs. 5A and 5B); and
a second lid (see Figs. 1-4) coupled to the second container to form an enclosure around the second battery (see Figs. 5A-5B).
Kim is silent to a first locking member extending parallel to the upper surface of the first lid and configured to translate relative to the first protrusion between a retracted position, in which the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, and an extended position, in which an end portion of the first locking member extends outside of the first protrusion, and wherein the first locking member is configured to engage the first alignment receiver when the second stackable battery assembly is stacked upon the first stackable battery assembly and the first locking member is in the extended position.
Nagatani teaches that it is known to utilize a locking member (combination of bolt 11 and nut 12, see Fig. 4; [0031]) within a first protrusion (fitting projection 5, see Figs. 3 and 4; [0029]-[0031]) of a first alignment mechanism (see Figs. 3-4). Nagtani teaches that this allows for stacking to be made possible, and a firm stacking without concern about dropping is made possible (see [0031]).
In view of Nagatani’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of Kim to include a locking member within a first protrusion because it allows for firm stacking to be made possible without concern about dropping. Furthermore, the combination of Kim and Nagatani would then result in a locking member extended parallel to the upper surface of the lid.
The combination of Kim and Nagatani is silent to wherein the first locking member is configured to translate relative to the first protrusion between a retracted position, in which the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, and an extended position, in which an end portion of the first locking member extends outside of the first protrusion, and wherein the first locking member is configured to engage the first alignment receiver when the second stackable battery assembly is stacked upon the first stackable battery assembly and the first locking member is in the extended position.
Chen teaches a locking mechanism 20 comprising a fastening bolt and a movable nut, and the fastening bolt is in threaded fit with the movable nut. The locking and unlocking mechanism 20 is configured to screw the fastening bolt into the movable nut to fixedly mount the battery 2000 in the mounting position of the battery 2000, and the locking and unlocking mechanism is configured to unscrew the fastening bolt from the movable nut to unlock the battery 2000 from the vehicle. For example, the locking and unlocking mechanism 20 includes a locking and unlocking driving motor 21 and a bolt sleeve 22. One end of the bolt sleeve 22 is connected to an output end of the locking and unlocking driving motor 21, and the other end of the bolt sleeve 22 fits with the fastening bolt. The locking and unlocking driving motor 21 drives the bolt sleeve 22 to rotate forward or backward to drive the fastening bolt to be screwed into or unscrewed from the movable nut (see Fig. 5 and [0074]).
In view of Chen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of the combination of Kim and Nagatani to include wherein the first locking member is configured to translate relative to the first protrusion between a retracted position, in which the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, and an extended position, in which an end portion of the first locking member extends outside of the first protrusion because it is a known locking mechanism, and the substitution of a known element (the bolt and nut locking mechanism of the combination of Kim and Nagatani) for another known element (the motorized bolt and nut of Chen) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Though the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen is silent to specifically teaching that the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, its particular placement to be disposed within the first protrusion is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try as there are a finite number of placements for the locking member to be disposed (i.e., either on the first protrusion or the wall of the first alignment receiver that cooperates with the first protrusion). Furthermore, disposing the locking member within the polygonal base of the first protrusion would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that in its extended position, the end portion of the first locking member extends outside of polygonal base to cooperate with the corresponding cavity to form the locked position. As the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen results in the first alignment receiver being configured to receive the first alignment mechanism when the second stackable battery assembly is stacked upon the first stackable battery assembly (Kim: see Figs. 5A and 5B), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the locking member to be configured to engage the first alignment receiver when the second stackable battery assembly is stacked upon the first stackable battery assembly and the first locking member is in the extended position in order to lock the first and second battery stackable battery assemblies together securely.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen teaches wherein the first protrusion comprises a base (Kim: ring surrounding second through hole 170b, see Figs. 1-4; 7:63-8:2 and 8:50-57) and an arcuate dome comprising tapered sides (Nagatani: tapered portion 6 of fitting projection 5, see Figs. 3-4; [0031]), but is silent to wherein the first locking member is disposed within the polygonal base when the first locking member is in the retracted position, and wherein the first locking member extends outside of the polygonal base when the first locking member is in the extended position. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular shape of the first protrusion’s base is merely a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found to be obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Furthermore, the particular placement of the first locking member to be within the polygonal base is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). Furthermore, disposing the locking member within the polygonal base of the first protrusion would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that in its extended position, the end portion of the first locking member extends outside of polygonal base to cooperate with the corresponding cavity to form the locked position.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen teaches wherein the second lid comprises:
a second plate (Kim: cover 170, see Figs. 1-5B) defining an upper surface of the second lid (see Figs. 1-5B); and
a second alignment mechanism comprising:
a second protrusion (second top terminal region 153b, see Figs. 1-5B; 7:63-8:2 and 8:50-57) extending orthogonally from the upper surface of the second lid (see Figs. 1-5B); and
a second locking member extending parallel to the upper surface of the second lid and configured to translate relative to the second protrusion between a retracted position, in which the second locking member is disposed within the second protrusion, and an extended position, in which an end portion of the second locking member extends outside of the second protrusion and is configured to engage a third container of a third stackable battery assembly that is stackable on top of the second container (see rejection for claim 10 above – second locking member is an identical duplicate to the first locking member but disposed within the second protrusion and configured to engage a third container of a third stackable battery assembly that is stackable on top of the second container, see Figs. 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kim, Nagtani, and Chen is silent to wherein the first locking member and the second locking member extend in opposite directions relative to one another. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular placement of the first and second locking members relative to one another is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen teaches wherein the first alignment receiver comprises a strike plate (Nagatani: nut 12, see Figs. 3-4; [0031]; Chen: see [0074] – movable nut is equated to the claimed strike plate) that is aligned with the first locking member when the second stackable battery assembly is stacked upon the first stackable battery assembly, and wherein, the first stackable battery assembly cannot be disassociated with the second stackable battery assembly when the second stackable battery assembly is stacked upon the first stackable battery assembly and the first locking member is in the extended position (Chen: see [0074]).
Claim(s) 4 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Schnakenberg (US 2020/0313128).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen teaches wherein the lid further comprises a second alignment mechanism (combination of top terminal region 133b and ring surrounding through hole 170a, see Figs. 1-4; 7:4-10) and extends orthogonally from the upper surface of the lid (see Fig. 1), the first alignment mechanism (combination of second top terminal region 153b and ring surrounding second throughhole 170b, see Figs. 1-4; 7:63-8:2 and 8:50-57) and the second alignment mechanism (combination of top terminal region 133b and ring surrounding throughhole 170a, see Figs. 1-4; 7:4-10 and 7:51-57) spaced apart from one another at a distance (see Fig. 1).
The combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen is silent to wherein the second alignment mechanism is identical to the first alignment mechanism.
Schnakenberg teaches a stackable battery assembly (accumulator module 10, see Figs. 1A-3B; [0030]) including a first alignment mechanism and a second alignment mechanism that is identical to the first alignment mechanism (see Figs. 3B and 4 – plug terminals 26; [0035]). The terminals 26, 28 are designed in such a way that the terminals 28 of another accumulator module 10 are contactable, without tools, by means of a terminal 26 of an accumulator module 10, for example by the terminals 26, 28 having a mutual form-fit design according to the plug-socket principle (see [0035]). Such an accumulator module is electrically and mechanically combinable, via one of the connection surfaces and/or alignment surfaces in each case, with another accumulator module and one of its connection surfaces and/or alignment surfaces, without the use of tools (see [0005]).
In view of Schnakenberg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery assembly of the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen to include wherein the second alignment mechanism is identical to the first alignment mechanism, as taught by Schnakenberg, because the substitution of one known alignment mechanism (the first and second alignment mechanism of Kim which are different) for another known alignment mechanism (the first and second alignment mechanism of Schnakenberg which are identical) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with predictable results at the time the invention was filed.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen teaches wherein:
the first lid further comprises a second alignment mechanism comprising:
a second alignment mechanism that is a receiver (first top terminal region 133b, see Figs. 1-5B) extending orthogonally from the upper surface of the first lid, the second container further comprises a second alignment receiver on the bottom surface of the second container that is a protrusion (first bottom terminal region 133a, see Figs. 1-5B), but is silent to:
a second protrusion extending orthogonally from the upper surface of the first lid; and
a second locking member extending parallel to the upper surface of the first lid and configured to translate relative to the second protrusion between a retracted position, in which the second locking member is disposed within the second protrusion, and an extended position, in which an end portion of the second locking member extends outside of the second protrusion; and
the second container further comprises a second alignment receiver on the bottom surface of the second container, the second alignment receiver configured to receive the second alignment mechanism when the second stackable battery assembly is stacked upon the first stackable battery assembly;
wherein the second locking member is configured to engage the second alignment receiver when the second stackable assembly is stacked upon the second stackable battery assembly and the second locking member is in the extended position.
Schnakenberg teaches a stackable battery assembly (accumulator module 10, see Figs. 1A-3B; [0030]) including a first alignment mechanism and a second alignment mechanism that is identical to the first alignment mechanism (see Figs. 3B and 4 – plug terminals 26; [0035]). The terminals 26, 28 are designed in such a way that the terminals 28 of another accumulator module 10 are contactable, without tools, by means of a terminal 26 of an accumulator module 10, for example by the terminals 26, 28 having a mutual form-fit design according to the plug-socket principle (see [0035]). Such an accumulator module is electrically and mechanically combinable, via one of the connection surfaces and/or alignment surfaces in each case, with another accumulator module and one of its connection surfaces and/or alignment surfaces, without the use of tools (see [0005]).
In view of Schnakenberg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery assembly of the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen to include the second alignment mechanism being identical to the first alignment mechanism, and the second alignment receiver on the bottom surface of the second container being identical to the first alignment receiver, as taught by Schnakenberg, because the substitution of one known alignment mechanism (the first and second alignment mechanism of Kim which are different and the first and second alignment receiver which are different) for another known alignment mechanism (the first and second alignment mechanism of Schnakenberg which are identical and the first and second alignment receiver which are identical) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with predictable results at the time the invention was filed. Furthermore, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, Chen, and Schnakenberg would allow for the first and second alignment mechanism to be plugs which cooperate with sockets on the bottom surface of the second stackable battery assembly (see Schnakenberg Figs. 1A-3B), which enables alignment and nesting of the second alignment mechanism inside a second female cavity on the bottom surface of the second stackable battery assembly. Furthermore, the particular second locking structure within the second protrusion is merely a duplicate of the first locking structure within the first protrusion of the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen. Similarly, the particular the structure of the second locking member engaging the second alignment receiver is also merely a duplicate of the first locking structure engaging with the first alignment receiver, and the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 8, 15, 18, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen as applied to claims 1 and 14, above, and further in view of Huggins et al. (US 2020/0313453; hereinafter “Huggins”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen is silent to a controller having a processor and memory, the processor executing instructions stored in the memory to:
cause the first locking member to translate to the extended position when a locking signal is received; and
cause the first locking member to translate to the retracted position when an unlocking signal is received.
Huggins teaches a device comprising a controller (controller 210, see Fig. 2; [0016]) having a processor (processor 250, see Fig. 2; [0016]) and memory (memory 255, see Fig. 2; [0016]), the processor executing instructions stored in the memory to:
cause the first locking member and the second locking member to translate to the extended position when a locking signal is received (see [0037]); and
cause the first locking member and the second locking member to translate to the retracted position when an unlocking signal is received (see [0037]).
Huggins teaches the controller implementation can be used to allow for user input to activate/deactivate the locking apparatus (Huggins: see [0037]).
In view of Huggins’ teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of the combination of the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen to include a controller having a processor and memory, the processor executing instructions stored in the memory to: cause the locking member to extend when a locking signal is received, and cause the locking member to retract when an unlocking signal is received, because the controller implementation can be used to allow for user input to activate/deactivate the locking apparatus (Huggins: see [0037]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kim, Nagtani, and Chen is silent to wherein the first locking member and the second locking member are each electrically operated.
Huggins teaches a device comprising a controller (controller 210, see Fig. 2; [0016]) having a processor (processor 250, see Fig. 2; [0016]) and memory (memory 255, see Fig. 2; [0016]), the processor executing instructions stored in the memory to:
cause the first locking member and the second locking member to translate to the extended position when a locking signal is received (see [0037]); and
cause the first locking member and the second locking member to translate to the retracted position when an unlocking signal is received (see [0037]).
Huggins teaches the controller implementation can be used to allow for user input to activate/deactivate the locking apparatus (Huggins: see [0037]).
In view of Huggins’ teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of the combination of the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen to include wherein the first locking member and the second locking member are each electrically operated, because the controller implementation can be used to allow for user input to activate/deactivate the locking apparatus (Huggins: see [0037]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen is silent to wherein each of the first stackable battery assembly and the second stackable battery assembly further comprises a controller having a processor and memory, the processor executing instructions stored in the memory to:
cause the first locking member to translate to the extended position when a locking signal is received; and
cause the first locking member to translate to the retracted position when an unlocking signal is received.
Huggins teaches a device comprising a controller (controller 210, see Fig. 2; [0016]) having a processor (processor 250, see Fig. 2; [0016]) and memory (memory 255, see Fig. 2; [0016]), the processor executing instructions stored in the memory to:
cause the first locking member and the second locking member to translate to the extended position when a locking signal is received (see [0037]); and
cause the first locking member and the second locking member to translate to the retracted position when an unlocking signal is received (see [0037]).
Huggins teaches the controller implementation can be used to allow for user input to activate/deactivate the locking apparatus (Huggins: see [0037]).
In view of Huggins’ teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of the combination of the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen to include wherein each of the first stackable battery assembly and the second stackable battery assembly further comprises a controller having a processor and memory, the processor executing instructions stored in the memory to: cause the locking member to extend when a locking signal is received, and cause the locking member to retract when an unlocking signal is received, because the controller implementation can be used to allow for user input to activate/deactivate the locking apparatus (Huggins: see [0037]).
Regarding claim 23, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform (i.e., wherein the unlocking signal is received from a robot), as per MPEP §2114. 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. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 8,778,530), in view of Nagatani et al. (US 2013/0143092, hereinafter “Nagatani”) and Chen et al. (CN 216101652 U, hereinafter “Chen”; using US 2024/0083295 for the English translation and citations), and Schnakenberg (US 2020/0313128).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches a stackable battery assembly (see Figs. 1-5B), comprising:
a battery (see Figs. 1-5B);
a lid (see Figs. 1-4), comprising:
a plate (cover 170, see Figs. 1-4) defining an upper surface of the lid (see Figs. 1-4); and
a pair of alignment mechanisms spaced apart from one another at a distance (see Figs. 1-4), wherein one is a protrusion (second top terminal region 153b, see Figs. 1-5B; 7:63-8:2) and one is a receiver (first top terminal region 133b, see Figs. 1-5B; see 7:4-11)
a container (case 110, see Figs. 1-4; 5:38-41), the lid and the container configured to enclose the battery (see Figs. 1-5B), the container comprising a pair of alignment receivers on a bottom surface of the container, wherein one is a protrusion (first bottom terminal region 133a, see Figs. 2, 5A, 5B; 7:33-8:2) and one is a receiver (second bottom terminal region 153a, see Figs. 2, 5A, 5B; 8:26-32), the alignment receiver forming a cavity that is shaped identically to the protrusion alignment mechanism extending orthogonally from the upper surface of the lid (see Figs. 1-5B), and the alignment receiver is configured to receive a respective alignment mechanism of a third stackable battery assembly upon which the stackable battery assembly is stacked (see Figs. 5A-5B).
Kim is silent to each of the pair of alignment mechanisms comprising a protrusion extending orthogonally from an upper surface of the lid, and configured to enable alignment and nesting of the pair of alignment mechanisms inside respective female cavities of a second stackable battery assembly that is stackable on top of the stackable battery assembly, and a locking member extending parallel to the upper surface of the lid and configured to translate relative to the protrusion between a retracted position, in which the locking member is disposed within the protrusion, and an extended position in which an end portion of the locking member extends outside of the protrusion and is configured to engage the second stackable battery assembly, and the pair of alignment receivers configured to receive respective alignment mechanisms of a third stackable battery assembly upon which the stackable battery assembly is stacked.
Nagatani teaches that it is known to utilize a locking member (combination of bolt 11 and nut 12, see Fig. 4; [0031]) within a first protrusion (fitting projection 5, see Figs. 3 and 4; [0029]-[0031]) of a first alignment mechanism (see Figs. 3-4). Nagtani teaches that this allows for stacking to be made possible, and a firm stacking without concern about dropping is made possible (see [0031]).
In view of Nagatani’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of Kim to include a locking member within a first protrusion because it allows for firm stacking to be made possible without concern about dropping. Furthermore, the combination of Kim and Nagatani would then result in a locking member extended parallel to the upper surface of the lid.
The combination of Kim and Nagatani is silent to each of the pair of alignment mechanisms comprising a protrusion extending orthogonally from an upper surface of the lid, and configured to enable alignment and nesting of the pair of alignment mechanisms inside respective female cavities of a second stackable battery assembly that is stackable on top of the stackable battery assembly, and a locking member configured to translate relative to the protrusion between a retracted position, in which the locking member is disposed within the protrusion, and an extended position in which an end portion of the locking member extends outside of the protrusion and is configured to engage the second stackable battery assembly, and the pair of alignment receivers configured to receive respective alignment mechanisms of a third stackable battery assembly upon which the stackable battery assembly is stacked.
Chen teaches a locking mechanism 20 comprising a fastening bolt and a movable nut, and the fastening bolt is in threaded fit with the movable nut. The locking and unlocking mechanism 20 is configured to screw the fastening bolt into the movable nut to fixedly mount the battery 2000 in the mounting position of the battery 2000, and the locking and unlocking mechanism is configured to unscrew the fastening bolt from the movable nut to unlock the battery 2000 from the vehicle. For example, the locking and unlocking mechanism 20 includes a locking and unlocking driving motor 21 and a bolt sleeve 22. One end of the bolt sleeve 22 is connected to an output end of the locking and unlocking driving motor 21, and the other end of the bolt sleeve 22 fits with the fastening bolt. The locking and unlocking driving motor 21 drives the bolt sleeve 22 to rotate forward or backward to drive the fastening bolt to be screwed into or unscrewed from the movable nut (see Fig. 5 and [0074]).
In view of Chen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of the combination of Kim and Nagatani to include wherein the first locking member is configured to translate relative to the first protrusion between a retracted position, in which the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, and an extended position, in which an end portion of the first locking member extends outside of the first protrusion because it is a known locking mechanism, and the substitution of a known element (the bolt and nut locking mechanism of the combination of Kim and Nagatani) for another known element (the motorized bolt and nut of Chen) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Though the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen is silent to specifically teaching that the first locking member is disposed within the first protrusion, its particular placement to be disposed within the first protrusion is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try as there are a finite number of placements for the locking member to be disposed (i.e., either on the first protrusion or the wall of the first alignment receiver that cooperates with the first protrusion). Furthermore, disposing the locking member within the polygonal base of the first protrusion would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that in its extended position, the end portion of the first locking member extends outside of polygonal base to cooperate with the corresponding cavity to form the locked position. As the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen results in the first alignment receiver being configured to receive the first alignment mechanism when the second stackable battery assembly is stacked upon the first stackable battery assembly (Kim: see Figs. 5A and 5B), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the locking member to be configured to engage the first alignment receiver when the second stackable battery assembly is stacked upon the first stackable battery assembly and the first locking member is in the extended position in order to lock the first and second battery stackable battery assemblies together securely.
The combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen is silent to each of the pair of alignment mechanisms comprising a protrusion extending orthogonally from an upper surface of the lid and the pair of alignment receivers configured to receive respective alignment mechanisms of a third stackable battery assembly upon which the stackable battery assembly is stacked.
Schnakenberg teaches a stackable battery assembly (accumulator module 10, see Figs. 1A-3B; [0030]) including a first alignment mechanism and a second alignment mechanism that is identical to the first alignment mechanism (see Figs. 3B and 4 – plug terminals 26; [0035]). The terminals 26, 28 are designed in such a way that the terminals 28 of another accumulator module 10 are contactable, without tools, by means of a terminal 26 of an accumulator module 10, for example by the terminals 26, 28 having a mutual form-fit design according to the plug-socket principle (see [0035]). Such an accumulator module is electrically and mechanically combinable, via one of the connection surfaces and/or alignment surfaces in each case, with another accumulator module and one of its connection surfaces and/or alignment surfaces, without the use of tools (see [0005]).
In view of Schnakenberg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen to include wherein each of the pair of alignment mechanisms comprising a protrusion extending orthogonally from an upper surface of the lid, and configured to enable alignment and nesting of the pair of alignment mechanisms inside respective female cavities of a second stackable battery assembly that is stackable on top of the stackable battery assembly and the pair of alignment receivers configured to receive respective alignment mechanisms of a third stackable battery assembly upon which the stackable battery assembly is stacked because the substitution of one known alignment mechanism (the first and second alignment mechanism on the top of the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen which are different and the first and second alignment receiver on the bottom of the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen which are different) for another known alignment mechanism (the pair of alignment mechanisms on the top lid and the pair of alignment receivers on the bottom of Schnakenberg which are identically shaped) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with predictable results at the time the invention was filed.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen as applied to claim 7 above, respectively, and further in view of BERTHE DE POMMERY et al. (US 2016/0359174; hereinafter “Berthe”).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen is silent to a pair of docking interfaces located on opposing side surfaces of the first container.
Berthe teaches electrical docking interfaces (male element 5 with electrical connection interface 8 which cooperates with female element 6 with electrical connection interface 9 being opposite of the polarity of connection 8, see Figs. 1-3; [0105]-[0108]) located on opposing side surfaces of a battery housing (see Figs. 1-3) that enable communication with other batteries (see [0108]-[0109]).
In view of Berthe’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of the combination of Kim, Nagatani, and Chen to include a pair of docking interfaces located on opposing side surfaces of the first container, because it enables communication with other batteries through the docking electrical interface.
Regarding the functional language (i.e., the pair of docking interfaces arranged to enable a robot to move the first container), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. 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. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Nagatani, Chen, and Berthe as applied to claim 21 above, respectively, and further in view of Huggins (US 2020/0313453).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, Chen, and Berthe is silent to:
a controller configured to activate the motor-driven plunger in response to a signal received from the robot.
Huggins teaches a device comprising a controller (controller 210, see Fig. 2; [0016]) having a processor (processor 250, see Fig. 2; [0016]) and memory (memory 255, see Fig. 2; [0016]), the processor executing instructions stored in the memory to:
cause the first locking member and the second locking member to extend when a locking signal is received (see [0037]); and
cause the first locking member and the second locking member to retract when an unlocking signal is received (see [0037]).
Huggins teaches the controller implementation can be used to allow for user input to activate/deactivate the locking apparatus (Huggins: see [0037]).
In view of Huggins’ teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of the combination of Kim, Nagatani, Chen, and Berthe to include a controller configured to activate the motor-driven plunger in response to a signal received because it allows for user input to activate/deactivate the locking apparatus.
Though the combination of Kim, Nagatani, Chen, Berthe, and Huggins is silent to the signal being received from the robot, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed that an obvious alternative to a user is a robot in order to require less user input.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Nagatani, Chen, and Huggins as applied to claim 23 above, respectively, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN 108968820 A, hereinafter “Huang”; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Kim, Nagatani, Chen, and Huggins is silent to a first electrical interface configured to interface with a second electrical interface of the robot to enable the robot to receive electrical power from the battery.
Huang teaches it is known to utilize a battery (output ends of batteries within battery compartment 12, see Fig. 2; [0025]-[0027]) to power a cleaning robot (robot body 1, see Figs. 1-4).
In view of Huang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of the combination of Kim, Nagatani, Chen, and Huggins to include a first electrical interface configured to interface with a second electrical interface of the robot to enable the robot to receive electrical power from the battery, because it is known to use batteries to power a robot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-13 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of amended independent claims 1, 10, 19, and their dependent claims. Applicant argues that Kim alone does not teach all of the features of amended claims 1, 10, and 19, and the secondary references do not make up for the deficiencies of Kim. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the second top terminal region 153b of Kim is not part of the cover 170, and that claim 1 requires the “first alignment mechanism” to be a part of the “lid”
The Examiner finds these arguments moot as the amended independent claims 1 and 10 have been rejected in view of Kim, Nagatani, and either Bhatia or Chen, and amended independent claim 19 has been rejected in view of Kim, Nagatani, Chen, and Schnakenberg. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 11 that the second top terminal region 153b of Kim is not part of the cover 170, and that claim 1 requires the “first alignment mechanism” to be a part of the “lid”, the Examiner finds this argument moot as the rejections above make it clear that the second top terminal region 153b of Kim is part of the claimed lid structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 29 September 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
