DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-08-13, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 2 have been amended; Claims 14-20 have been canceled; Claims 21-26 have been added.
Claims 1-13 and 21-26 are pending; claims 3-5 and 9-13 remaining withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 21-26 are examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 21 require “identifying a locator on a cover of the battery assembly, the locator indicating a plurality of removal zones […] a first removal zone […] has a first profile and a second removal zone […] has a second profile that is different from the first profile.” This language appears nowhere in the specification—the description does not use the word “profile.” Support for different “profiles” appears to come from, e.g., instant Fig. 2, which shows different profiles for component 40a.
PNG
media_image1.png
684
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The specification indicates that profile 40a is “a locator” that is also “a visible pattern 40a disposed on the cover 36. In other words, each component removal zone has its own pattern 40a that visibly defines the bounds of that component removal zone 38” (¶0035 of PGPUB US 2024/0189939). Claims 2 and 22 also require “a pattern printed onto the cover.”
There is no support in the specification for a single “locator” on a cover of the battery assembly that indicates a “plurality of removal zone” having “different profiles.” At best, there is support for a plurality of locators that are, essentially, identical with a “profile,” and identical with a “pattern.” The claims are therefore rejected for introducing apparently redundant elements with different names that do not find explicit support in the specification for their claimed relationships and all that those relationships imply. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claims 1, 2, 21, and 22.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As discussed above, claims 1 and 21 include new matter. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what the distinctions are between the claimed “a locator,” the claimed “removal zones” having “profiles,” and the “pattern[s] printed onto the cover” found in claims 2 and 22. Is there a singular locator identifying multiple removal zones? Does the locator just “include” a pattern printed onto the cover or is it just the pattern itself? Is the pattern just the “profile” of the removal zone or distinct from the profile? The claims have been interpreted broadly to refer to a plurality of removal zones, having different geometric features, that are identified by the sensing system(s) of the robotic controller. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claims 1 and 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevak (US 2019/0221800 to Sevak et al.) in view of Zorn (Zorn et al. “An Approach for Automated Disassembly of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs and High-Quality Recycling Using Computer Vision, Labeling, and Material Characterization.” Recycling 2022, 7, 48), Bania (US 2014/0069335 to Bania et al.) and Peterson (US 2021/0210905 to Peterson et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Sevak teaches:
a battery assembly 14 with components behind a panel cover 112 with identifying marks, including a fastening boundary along a removal zone of the cover, and serviceable components behind the cover (¶ 0053, 0063-0066, Figs. 3 and 4)
a method of opening the cover and servicing the components, including removal and replacement of the component(s) covered by the removal zone (¶ 0062)
wherein the enclosure cover can include “other service lids in addition to the service lid 112” (¶ 0063)
PNG
media_image2.png
276
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
352
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would, therefore, have been obvious to include other service lids for larger battery packs to access other components and/or other battery modules, based on Sevak’s own disclosure. It further would have been obvious that those lids could have different “profiles” to suit the space requirements and needs of those components. Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Sevak does not teach:
detecting via a sensor a locator or locators on the cover, the locator(s) indicating the plurality of different removal zones
adjusting via a controller a path of a removal tool based on the data identifying the locator
actuating the removal tool along the adjusted path to separate the removal zone from a remainder of the cover to remove the component
Zorn, however, from the same field of invention, regarding the removal of components from a battery pack, teaches the use of automatic robotic manipulators controlled by controllers (abstract, pp. 3-5, 15). Zorn further teaches that the robotic disassembly uses visual identifiers, such as QR codes to identify batteries for removal automatically, wherein the robotic controller adjusts the path of the robotic manipulator via a visual system and path planner for a variety of different geometries (pp. 15-17). Bania, also from the same field of invention, regarding robotic work on vehicle components, teaches a robotic arm 50 that opens a panel door (¶ 0050) to allow access to further tool components for servicing the vehicle. In addition, Peterson, regarding robotic work on vehicle components, teaches using a robotic installer for an electrical connector component, capable of connecting and disconnecting electronic components (abstract, etc.). Peterson further teaches that visual scanning systems (with sensors) were known in the art to orient the robotic installer, and were known to provide sense data to orient and guide the connecting/disconnecting tools (¶ 0003, 0023).
It would have been obvious to provide a robotic controller that visual identifies cover and battery system components for removal, as suggested by Zorn, in the multi-cover battery systems disclosed by Sevak, in order to automate removal, replacement, and/or disassembly. Bania and Peterson provide further teaching and motivation for using robotic arms to open panels and manipulate components in vehicle systems.
Regarding Claim 2, Zorn renders obvious:
patterns printed onto or adjacent structures to guide the robotic controller (pp. 15-17)
See also previously cited Vargo (US Patent No. 11,861,276) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art in this regard. Vargo teaches a system for automated lug nut removal (abstract), teaches providing certain “patterns, colors, shapes, or a combination thereof” to help the robotic apparatus in determining the positions of the lug nuts that are to be worked on, the patterns being identified by e.g. a camera (column 9 lines 6-39). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to provide a pattern to guide the robotic apparatus so that it can control the robotic removal tool(s) to accurately removal the cover panel and access the electronic components, as the prior art already taught using such patterned markers with robotic systems.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Zorn renders obvious:
use of 3D coordinate data obtained by the visual system to manipulate the intended objects (p. 6)
Peterson also renders obvious a vision system (¶ 0003, 0023). See also Vargo, previously cited, for evidence of ordinary skill in the art, which teaches visual camera systems (column 9), as well as the use of three-dimensional coordinate data to position the removal tool(s) (column 10, lines 32-38). It would have been obvious to use visual systems with three-dimensional coordinates, to improve identification and manipulation, as was known in the robotic apparatus arts. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 8, Sevak teaches:
service of a battery electronic component, including an electronic connection
Regarding Claim 21, Sevak teaches:
a battery assembly 14 with components behind a panel cover 112 with identifying marks, including a fastening boundary along a removal zone of the cover, and serviceable components behind the cover (¶ 0053, 0063-0066, Figs. 3 and 4)
a method of opening the cover and servicing the components, including removal and replacement of the component(s) covered by the removal zone (¶ 0062)
wherein the enclosure cover can include “other service lids in addition to the service lid 112” (¶ 0063)
wherein the covers to be removed have protrusions extending outward from the cover to separate it from the remainder of the cover (Figs. 3-4)
It would, therefore, have been obvious to include other service lids for larger battery packs to access other components and/or other battery modules, based on Sevak’s own disclosure. It further would have been obvious that those lids could have different “profiles” to suit the space requirements and needs of those components. Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Sevak does not teach:
detecting via a sensor a locator or locators on the cover, the locator(s) indicating the plurality of different removal zones
adjusting via a controller a path of a removal tool based on the data identifying the locator
actuating the removal tool along the adjusted path to separate the removal zone from a remainder of the cover to remove the component
Zorn, however, from the same field of invention, regarding the removal of components from a battery pack, teaches the use of automatic robotic manipulators controlled by controllers (abstract, pp. 3-5, 15). Zorn further teaches that the robotic disassembly uses visual identifiers, such as QR codes to identify batteries for removal automatically, wherein the robotic controller adjusts the path of the robotic manipulator via a visual system and path planner for a variety of different geometries (pp. 15-17). Bania, also from the same field of invention, regarding robotic work on vehicle components, teaches a robotic arm 50 that opens a panel door (¶ 0050) to allow access to further tool components for servicing the vehicle. In addition, Peterson, regarding robotic work on vehicle components, teaches using a robotic installer for an electrical connector component, capable of connecting and disconnecting electronic components (abstract, etc.). Peterson further teaches that visual scanning systems (with sensors) were known in the art to orient the robotic installer, and were known to provide sense data to orient and guide the connecting/disconnecting tools (¶ 0003, 0023).
It would have been obvious to provide a robotic controller that visual identifies cover and battery system components for removal, as suggested by Zorn, in the multi-cover battery systems disclosed by Sevak, in order to automate removal, replacement, and/or disassembly. Bania and Peterson provide further teaching and motivation for using robotic arms to open panels and manipulate components in vehicle systems.
Regarding Claim 22, Zorn renders obvious:
patterns printed onto or adjacent structures to guide the robotic controller (pp. 15-17)
See also previously cited Vargo (US Patent No. 11,861,276) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art in this regard. Vargo teaches a system for automated lug nut removal (abstract), teaches providing certain “patterns, colors, shapes, or a combination thereof” to help the robotic apparatus in determining the positions of the lug nuts that are to be worked on, the patterns being identified by e.g. a camera (column 9 lines 6-39). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to provide a pattern to guide the robotic apparatus so that it can control the robotic removal tool(s) to accurately removal the cover panel and access the electronic components, as the prior art already taught using such patterned markers with robotic systems.
Regarding Claims 23-24, Zorn renders obvious:
use of 3D coordinate data obtained by the visual system to manipulate the intended objects (p. 6)
Peterson also renders obvious a vision system (¶ 0003, 0023). See also Vargo, previously cited, for evidence of ordinary skill in the art, which teaches visual camera systems (column 9), as well as the use of three-dimensional coordinate data to position the removal tool(s) (column 10, lines 32-38). It would have been obvious to use visual systems with three-dimensional coordinates, to improve identification and manipulation, as was known in the robotic apparatus arts. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 25 Sevak teaches:
service of a battery electronic component, including an electronic connection
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevak (US 2019/0221800 to Sevak et al.) in view of Zorn (Zorn et al. “An Approach for Automated Disassembly of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs and High-Quality Recycling Using Computer Vision, Labeling, and Material Characterization.” Recycling 2022, 7, 48), Bania (US 2014/0069335 to Bania et al.) and Peterson (US 2021/0210905 to Peterson et al.), in further view of Han (CN 207233900 to Han et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 26, Zorn renders obvious:
disassembly steps such as cutting (p. 15) via conventional means known in the art
While Sevak and Zorn do not explicitly teach “laser” cutting to cut horizontally through a protrusion on a cover in order to remove a component, laser cutting was conventional in the art for disassembly and removal. Han, however, from the same field of invention, regarding the disassembly of a battery pack, teaches a robotic system with a visual recognition sensor in order to plan a path for a laser cutter (p. 1), which moves vertically to cut horizontally into the module for removal of components (p. 2). It would have been obvious to use a laser cutter for disassembly and removal, since laser cutting was a known cutting technique in the art, and Zorn teaches cutting as a common step in disassembly of battery modules.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-08-13 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. The claims are now rejected for new matter and indefiniteness under § 112. Applicant argues that Sevak does not teach a plurality of removal zones with different profiles. Sevak, however, does teach a plurality of removal zones and it would have been obvious for them to have different profiles.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights