DETAILED ACTION
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 - and 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith et al. US 973268 (“Smith”) in view of Buechling et al. US 11901653 (“Buechling”).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a first battery connector (6, i.e. a connector capable of being used in conjunction with a battery) having a first battery contact (10, i.e., a contact capable of transmitting electrical current from a battery), the first battery contact having a first separable mating interface 14. Smith discloses wires 4 which function as a “jumper” as claimed. The jumper/wire 4 is inherently flexible between the first and second ends accommodating relative movement of the first battery connector and the second battery connector.
Smith does not specifically disclose a second connector 6 at the at the end of the wires 4.
Buechling discloses identical battery connectors (4a, 4b, col. 2, lines 45-50, analogous to Smith connector 6) provided at opposing ends of conductor assembly 10 (analogous to Smith wires 4). It would have been obvious to provide connectors 6 as taught in Smith at both ends of wires 4 (making wires 4 a “jumper” as claimed), as taught in Buechling. The reason would have been to provide electrical transmission between two components as was known in the art. Providing a connector 6 on opposing ends wires 4 would have been a duplication of parts without patentable significance given that no new or unexpected results would have been produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960).
Smith does not disclose that the connectors are connected to batteries. Buechling discloses both battery connectors (4a, 4b) connected to batteries 2.
It would have been obvious to connect two Smith battery connectors 6, connected by Smith jumper/wires (4), as set above, to two batteries, as taught in Buechling. It would have been obvious to do this by providing Smith connectors 8 (mateable with Smith connectors 6) on two batteries, such as batteries 2 of Buechling. The reason for doing so would have been to provide increased voltage or capacity in a battery powered circuit as was well known in the art.
To the extent that Smith does not specify that the batteries are eVTOL battery modules, the selection of batteries based on size and intended purpose would have been a matter of engineering design choice without patentable significance.
Per claim 2, the assembly of claim 1 results in the assembly where the first battery contact is connected to the first battery terminal at the first separable mating interface and the second battery contact is connected to the second battery terminal at the second separable mating interface.
Per claim 3, the first battery contact includes a spring finger 12 at the first separable mating interface, the spring finger being slidably coupled to the first battery terminal, the second battery contact including a spring finger 12 at the second separable mating interface, the spring finger being slidably coupled to the second battery terminal.
Per claim 4, the first end of the jumper conductor is electrically connected to the first battery contact at a compression connection (Smith at 18, 19) and the second end of the jumper conductor is electrically connected to the second battery contact at a compression connection (Smith at 18, 19).
Per claim 6 the first battery connector includes a first connector housing (30, 90) holding the first battery contact and the second battery connector includes a second connector housing (30, 90) holding the second battery contact.
Per claim 7 the first battery connector includes a first seal 100 coupled to the first connector housing and configured to be coupled to a first shroud 156 extending from the first battery that covers the first battery terminal 20,
and wherein the second battery connector includes a second seal 100 coupled to the second connector housing and configured to be coupled to a second shroud 156 extending from the second battery that covers the second battery terminal.
Per claim 8, the first battery connector includes a first latch 92 coupled to the first connector housing and configured to be coupled to a first shroud extending from the first battery and covering the first battery terminal, and wherein the second battery connector includes a second latch 92 coupled to the second connector housing and configured to be coupled to a second shroud extending from the second battery and covering the second battery terminal.
Per claim 10, the jumper conductor includes a first jumper contact (i.e. the portion of the wire 4 attached to the contact 10) at the first end and a second jumper contact (i.e. the portion of the wire 4 attached to the contact 10) at the second end.
Regarding claim 15, Smith discloses a connector assembly comprising
a first battery connector (6, i.e. a connector capable of being used in conjunction with a battery) having a first connector housing (30, 90) holding a first battery contact 10 in a first cavity, the first battery contact 10 having a first separable mating interface 14 for mating with a first battery terminal of a first eVTOL battery module.
Smith discloses wires 4 which function as a flexible “jumper” as claimed and inherently accommodate movement in three dimensions.
Smith does not specifically disclose a second connector 6 at the at the end of the wires 4.
Buechling discloses identical battery connectors (4a, 4b, col. 2, lines 45-50, analogous to Smith connector 6) provided at opposing ends of conductor assembly 10 (analogous to Smith wires 4). It would have been obvious to provide connectors 6 as taught in Smith at both ends of wires 4 (making wires 4 a “jumper” as claimed, as taught in Buechling. The reason would have been to provide electrical transmission between two components as was known in the art. Providing a connector 6 on opposing ends wires 4 would have been a duplication of parts without patentable significance given that no new or unexpected results would have been produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960).
The resulting assembly would include a jumper (wires 4) electrically connecting the first battery connector and the second battery connector, the jumper including a jumper conductor having a first end and a second end, the first end of the jumper conductor being terminated to the first battery contact, the second end of the jumper conductor being terminated to the second battery contact, the jumper conductor being flexible between the first end and the second end.
Regarding claim 16, Smith does not disclose that the connectors are connected to batteries. Buechling discloses both battery connectors (4a, 4b) connected to batteries 2.
It would have been obvious to connect two Smith battery connectors 6, connected by Smith jumper/wires (4), as set out above, to two batteries, as taught in Buechling. It would have been obvious to do this by providing Smith connectors 8 (mateable with Smith connectors 6) on two batteries, such as batteries 2 of Buechling. The reason for doing so would have been to provide increased voltage or capacity in a battery powered circuit as was well known in the art.
To the extent that Smith does not specify that the batteries are eVTOL battery modules, the selection of batteries based on size and intended purpose would have been a matter of engineering design choice without patentable significance.
Regarding claim 18, Smith discloses a system comprising:
a first battery connector (6, i.e. a connector capable of being used in conjunction with a battery) having a first battery contact (10, i.e., a contact capable of transmitting electrical current from a battery), the first battery contact having a first separable mating interface 14.
Smith discloses wires 4 which function as a “jumper” as claimed. The jumper/wires 4 are inherently flexible between the first and second ends accommodating relative movement of the connector.
Smith does not specifically disclose a second connector 6 at the at the end of the wires 4.
Buechling discloses identical battery connectors (4a, 4b, col. 2, lines 45-50, analogous to Smith connector 6) provided at opposing ends of conductor assembly 10 (analogous to Smith wires 4). It would have been obvious to provide connectors 6 as taught in Smith at both ends of wires 4, making wires 4 a flexible “jumper” as claimed, as taught in Buechling. The reason would have been to provide electrical transmission between two components as was known in the art. Providing a connector 6 on opposing ends wires 4 would have been a duplication of parts without patentable significance given that no new or unexpected results would have been produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960).
Smith does not disclose that the connectors are connected to batteries. Buechling discloses both battery connectors (4a, 4b) connected to batteries 2.
It would have been obvious to connect two Smith battery connectors 6, connected by Smith jumper/wires (4), as set above, to two batteries, as taught in Buechling. It would have been obvious to do this by providing Smith connectors 8 (mateable with Smith connectors 6) on two batteries, such as batteries 2 of Buechling. The reason for doing so would have been to provide increased voltage or capacity in a battery powered circuit as was well known in the art. The result of providing Smith connector 8 on batteries, such as two batteries 2 of Buechling, would be a first battery module (battery 2 of Buechling) having a first battery terminal (terminals 20 of Smith) and a second (identical) battery module having a second battery terminal.
To the extent that Smith does not specify that the batteries are eVTOL battery modules, the selection of batteries based on size and intended purpose would have been a matter of engineering design choice without patentable significance.
Per claim 19, the system resulting from the provisions as set out regarding claim 18 would result in connector system wherein the battery connector is coupled to the first battery.
Per claim 20, Buechling discloses that the batteries have a top (see figure 1) at which the battery connectors 4 are provided. It would have been obvious to provide the Smith connectors 8 at the top of a battery as suggested in Buechling. Such a selection of location for the terminals, such as at the top of the battery, would have been a matter of engineering design choice, being a rearrangement of parts without patentable significance. See In re In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) (Duplication of parts has no patentable significance) and In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Rearrangement of parts where operation of device not modified is not patentably significant).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Buechling in view of De Castro US 5476396.
Regarding claim 9, the Smith connector housing surrounds the first battery contact and is made of plastic (col. 3, lines 10-15) which forms a barrier which is to some extent inherently “fire resistant.” De Castro discloses a connector housing 11 formed of fire resistant plastic materials (col. 4, lines 15-25). It would have been obvious to form the Smith plastic connector housings out of fire resistant plastics as taught in De Castro. The reason would have been to prevent heat/fire damage to the connector as was well known in the art. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Col. V. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 17, the Smith connector housing surrounds the first battery contact and is made of plastic (col. 3, lines 10-15) which forms a barrier which is to some extent inherently “fire resistant.” De Castro discloses a connector housing 11 formed of fire resistant plastic materials (col. 4, lines 15-25). It would have been obvious to form the Smith plastic connector housings out of fire resistant plastics as taught in De Castro. The reason would have been to prevent heat/fire damage to the connector as was well known in the art. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Col. V. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
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). Buechling discloses two identical connectors which electrically connect two batteries via a conductor. Smith discloses a connector which is attached to wires which are inherently flexible and inherently allow for relative displacement between the device on one end of the wires and the device on the other end of the wires. The claimed device is obvious as set out in the rejections above.
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 ROSS GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached on 571-272-3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROSS N GUSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights