DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 5 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 11, 14, 17-19 have been amended, claims 2, 3, 9, 12, and 13 have been canceled, new claims 20-25 have been introduced, and claims 1, 4-8, 10, 11, 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 .
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 14-18 and 24 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 14 currently depends from claim 26, which does not exist, so it is unclear what the dependency of claim 14 is. As claims 15-18 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 14, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 24 currently depends on itself, so it is unclear what the dependency of claim 24 is.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 8,778,530).
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) and a second stackable battery assembly (battery assembly 100 adjacent to leftmost battery assembly 100, see Figs. 5A and B), wherein the first stackable battery assembly comprises:
a lid (cover 170, see Figs. 1-4; 5:38-41);
a container (case 110, see Figs. 1-4; 5:38-41) that is configured to receive and retain a battery (electrode assembly 120, see Figs. 3-4; 5:38-41), the lid and container being configured to enclose the battery (see Figs. 1-5B); and,
a first alignment mechanism (combination of second top terminal region 153b and ring surrounding second through hole 170b, see Figs. 1-4; 7:63-8:2 and 8:50-57) extending orthogonally from an upper surface of the lid of the first stackable battery assembly (see Figs. 1-4), the first alignment mechanism enabling alignment and nesting of the first alignment mechanism inside a first female cavity on a bottom surface of the second stackable battery assembly (first female cavity equated to second bottom terminal region 153a, see Figs. 1-5B; 7:63-8:2).
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, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 8,778,530).
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 (cover 170, see Figs. 1-4; 5:38-41) coupled to the first container (see Figs. 1-4) to form an enclosure around the battery (see Figs. 1-4), the lid comprising a first alignment mechanism (combination of second top terminal region 153b and ring surrounding second through hole 170b, see Figs. 1-4; 7:63-8:2 and 8:50-57) extending orthogonally from an upper surface of the lid (see Figs. 1-4), having a base (ring surrounding second through hole 170b, see Figs. 1-4; 8:50-57) and a projection on top of the base (projection equated to second top terminal region 153b, see Figs. 1-4).
Kim is silent to the first alignment mechanism having a polygonal base and an arcuate dome comprising tapered sides. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular shape of the alignment mechanism’s base and extension portion 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).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., that enable alignment and nesting of the first alignment mechanism inside a female cavity of a second container that is stackable on top of 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.
Regarding claim 11, Kim is silent to wherein the first alignment mechanism includes a polygonal base with an arcuate dome comprising tapered sides. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular shape of the alignment mechanism’s base and extension portion 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).
Regarding claim 20, Applicant is reminded that limitations drawn to a second container do not limit the stackable battery assembly associated with the first container.
Claim(s) 4 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Schnakenberg (US 2020/0313128).
Regarding claim 4, Kim 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).
Kim 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 Kim 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, Kim teaches the system further comprising:
a second alignment mechanism (first top terminal region 133b, see Figs. 1-5B) extending orthogonally from the surface of the lid of the first stackable battery assembly (see Figs. 1-5B) and spaced apart from the first alignment mechanism (see Figs. 1-5B), but is silent to the second alignment mechanism enabling alignment and nesting of the second alignment mechanism inside a second female cavity on the bottom surface of the second stackable battery assembly.
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 Kim to include the second alignment mechanism being 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. Furthermore, the combination of Kim 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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim and Schnakenberg as applied to claim 4 above, respectively, and further in view of Gless et al. (US 2013/0196217; hereinafter “Gless”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim and Schnakenberg is silent to wherein the first alignment mechanism comprises a locking member housed within the polygonal base.
Gless teaches a system for connecting batteries. Gless teaches there is preferably a provision that the terminal of the second battery which is electrically conductively connected to the first battery is embodied in the region of the electrical contact in a way which is at least in part complementary to the shape of the bending lug. It is therefore possible to implement a way of accommodating on the terminal of the second battery in a positively locking fashion and of therefore improving the electrical contact over the service life (see [0021]). Gless teaches a positively locking (for example a screw connection) and/or frictionally locking and/or materially joined connection (such as a weld; see [0025]).
In view of Gless’ 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 Schnakenberg to include wherein the first alignment mechanism comprises a locking member because it can help to improve the electrical contact over the service life.
The combination of Kim, Schnakenberg, and Gless is silent to wherein the locking member is housed within the polygonal base. However, absent persuasive evidence, the particular placement of the locking member is merely an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Schnakenberg, and Gless as applied to claim 5 above, respectively, and further in view of Bhatia et al. (US 2023/0066428; hereinafter “Bhatia”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim, Schnakenberg, and Gless is silent to wherein the locking member comprises a spring-loaded plunger operable to latch the first alignment mechanism of the first container with the female cavity of the second container.
Bhatia in Fig. 7A llustrates 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 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, 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, Schnakenberg, and Gless to include wherein the locking member comprises a spring-loaded plunger because it is a known locking mechanism, and the substitution of a known element (the positively locking mechanism of the combination of Kim, Schnakenberg, and Gless) 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.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., operable to latch the first alignment mechanism of the first container with the female cavity of the second 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Schnakenberg, and Gless as applied to claim 5 above, respectively, and further in view of Johnston (US 2018/0094455; hereinafter “Johnston”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim, Schnakenberg, and Gless is silent to wherein the first locking member comprises a motor-driven plunger.
Johnston teaches an electronic lock 12, which may include a lock mechanism 24 configured to move between locked and unlocked configurations. In the illustrated embodiment, the lock mechanism 24 is a mechanical lock including an actuator 26 that is configured to move linearly between an extended position (see, e.g., FIGS. 6 and 10) and a retracted position (see, e.g., FIGS. 7 and 11). However, it is understood that the lock mechanism 24 may be any suitable mechanism that is configured to move between locked and unlocked states or positions, such as a plunger, cam, or the like for facilitating mechanical actuation. The electronic lock 12 may be equipped with an electric motor, DC stepper motor, solenoid, or the like, that is in communication with a processor and powered by an internal power source for actuating the lock mechanism 24 (see [0036]).
In view of Johnston’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, Schnakenberg, and Gless to include wherein the first locking member comprises a motor-driven plunger because it is a known mechanism for actuating between locked and unlocked states.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., operable to latch the first alignment mechanism of the first container with the female cavity of the second 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) 8 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Schnakenberg, Gless, and Johnston as applied to claim 7 above, respectively, and further in view of Huggins et al. (US 2020/0313453; hereinafter “Huggins”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim, Schnakenberg, Gless, and Johnston is silent to 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.
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 the combination of Kim, Schnakenberg, Gless, and Johnston 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 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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Schnakenberg, Gless, and Johnston 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, Schnakenberg, Gless, and Johnston 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, Schnakenberg, Gless, and Johnston 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, Schnakenberg, Gless, Johnston, 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, Schnakenberg, Gless, Johnston, 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, Schnakenberg, Gless, Johnston, 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, Schnakenberg, Gless, Johnston, 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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 8,778,530), in view of Schnakenberg (US 2020/0313128) and Gless (2013/0196217).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches a stackable battery assembly (see Figs. 1-5B), comprising:
a battery (see Figs. 1-5B);
a lid (cover 170, see Figs. 1-4; 5:38-41) having a pair of alignment mechanisms extending orthogonally from an upper surface of the lid wherein one is a projection (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 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 projection (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 projection alignment mechanisms extending orthogonally from the upper surface of the lid (see Figs. 1-5B),
Kim is silent to each of the pair of alignment mechanisms comprising a locking member, having a pair of alignment mechanisms extending orthogonally from an upper surface of the lid, the pair of alignment receivers forming cavities that are shaped identically to the pair of alignment mechanisms extending orthogonally from the upper surface of the lid
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 Kim to include having a pair of alignment mechanisms extending orthogonally from an upper surface of the lid, the pair of alignment receivers forming cavities that are shaped identically to the pair of alignment mechanisms extending orthogonally from the upper surface of the lid, because the substitution of one known alignment mechanism (the first and second alignment mechanism on the top and bottom of Kim which are different) for another known alignment mechanism (the first and second alignment mechanism on the top and bottom 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.
The combination of Kim and Schnakenberg is silent to each of the pair of alignment mechanisms comprising a locking member
Gless teaches a system for connecting batteries. Gless teaches there is preferably a provision that the terminal of the second battery which is electrically conductively connected to the first battery is embodied in the region of the electrical contact in a way which is at least in part complementary to the shape of the bending lug. It is therefore possible to implement a way of accommodating on the terminal of the second battery in a positively locking fashion and of therefore improving the electrical contact over the service life (see [0021]). Gless teaches a positively locking (for example a screw connection) and/or frictionally locking and/or materially joined connection (such as a weld; see [0025]).
In view of Gless’ 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 Schnakenberg to include wherein the first alignment mechanism comprises a locking member because it can help to improve the electrical contact over the service life.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., the pair of alignment receivers arranged to receive a pair of alignment mechanisms of another stackable battery assembly upon which the stackable battery assembly is stacked), 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 December 2025 have been fully considered, but Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10, 11, 14-25 are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 16 May 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights