DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 03/06/26 has been received and entered in the case. The amendment to independent claims 1 and 15 does not distinguish patentably over the previously applied prior art, i.e., AAPA figures 1A and 1B, for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant's admitted prior art (AAPA) figures 1A and 1B.
As to claim 1, AAPA figures 1A and 1B show a battery-driver enclosure comprising a first member (3) and a second member (5), wherein the first member and the second member together define the battery-driver enclosure, and wherein the first member and the second member obviously engage at non-adjacent corners of the enclosure (note that the adjacent corners of the enclosures shown in AAPA figures 1A and 1B will obviously engage and the non-adjacent corners of the enclosures shown in AAPA figures 1A and 1B will also obviously engage, thus meeting the limitation that the first member and the second member overlap at non-adjacent corners of the enclosure, the reason being that the battery enclosure of figures 1A and 1B is admitted in paragraph [0025] of the originally filed specification to be a square or rectangle in cross-section, any person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the battery enclosure will obviously be either a cube or a rectangular cuboid, i.e., a cube if the battery is in the shape of a sphere, or a rectangular cuboid if the battery is in the shape of a cylinder (note that the illustration of the battery 106 in figures 1A and 1B in cross-section suggests that the battery is either spherical or cylindrical). Therefore, if the AAPA battery enclosure of instant figures 1A and 1B is either a cube or a rectangular cuboid, it will have engaging adjacent corners as well as engaging non-adjacent corners, as shown in Attachment A which illustrates how the AAPA battery enclosure would appear from a side view, i.e., with lid 3 being engaged with the base member 5 such that all four corners of the lid engage the respective four corners of the base member).
As to claim 15, this claim is rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claim 1, i.e., the battery-driver enclosures shown in figures 1A and 1B, when assembled, will obviously comprise engaging the first and second members with each other such that the first and second members engage with each other, i.e., all four corners of the lid and base ember engage each other at both adjacent corners and non-adjacent corners.
As to claim 19, note that the first member in AAPA figure 1A has a short end wall which abuts, i.e., is pressed against, a longer end wall of the second member.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 12-14 are allowed.
Claims 2-11, 16-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: these claims are allowable for the reasons indicated in paragraph eight of the office action mailed on 02/05/25.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on 03/06/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that "[a]s illustrated in Figures 1A and 1B, the alleged first and second member engage at adjacent corners, and there is no engagement at [sic] and thus fail to disclose, teach, or suggest the battery-driven enclosure of the present application." This argument is not persuasive because, as noted in the rejection above, in AAPA figures 1A and 1B, the adjacent corners of the first member (the lid 3) and the second member (the base 5) will obviously engage with each other, and the non-adjacent corners of the first and second members will also obviously engage with each other, note Attachment A provided by the examiner which shows that the enclosures of AAPA figures 1A and 1B will obviously be in the shape of a cube or a rectangular cuboid, and in either case the lid 3 will have four corners, and the base 5 will also have four corresponding corners. As shown in Attachment A, the first and second corners are adjacent to each other, the first and third corners are non-adjacent to each other, and the four of the corners of lid 3 will engage with the respective four corners of the base 5, and therefore the first and third non-adjacent corners will engage with each other, thus meeting the limitation in independent claims 1 and 15 that the first member and the second member engage at non-adjacent corners of the enclosure. Applicant should note that the examiner is interpreting the newly added term "engage" to simply mean "fit together", i.e., when the AAPA lid 3 is pressed down on the AAPA base 5, the lid and the base will fit together and therefore be attached to each other via a simple friction fit engagement.
Action is Final
5. 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.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, REGIS BETSCH can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 March 13, 2026