DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 8-14) in the reply filed on June 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0021], 6th line, replace “know” with “known” after “as”.
In paragraph [0025], last line, replace “siding” with “sliding”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
With regard to claim 12, the phrase “may be” (in the 2nd line) recites an optional function of being “placed”. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “may be” with “is” to more distinctly define this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitano et al. (US 2021/0249738).
Regarding independent claim 8, Kitano et al. disclose a battery lock out system for a work machine (see paragraphs [0031]-[0046]; and Figures 1-4), in which the battery lock out system includes the following structural features (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation – refer to annotated Figure 4 of Kitano et al. below):
a locking bracket configured to lock in at least a first position and a second position, and being capable of moving in a sliding direction, wherein the locking bracket includes a first tab and a second tab that are configured to lock components on or near a battery case (10) of the battery pack (1), such that the battery pack (1) of Kitano et al. has a manual service disconnect that is attachable to a power module of the battery pack (1) – see paragraphs [0031], [0033], and [0043]; Figures 1 and 3; and annotated Figure 4 of Kitano et al. below.
wherein the battery pack (1) would further include a service plug (not shown) that is configured to be attached to the power module of the battery pack (1) once the manual service disconnect is removed from the power module.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Kitano et al. disclose a locking post that is attached to the battery pack (1) and is configured to lock the locking bracket between the first position and the second position, wherein the locking post includes a locking hole on a top portion that can be attached to the battery pack (1) – see annotated Figure 4 of Kitano et al. below.
Regarding claim 11, Kitano et al. disclose that the locking bracket includes a first hole and a second hole, wherein the first hole and the second hole are arranged in a concentric manner in relation to the locking hole when arranged in the first position and the second position, respectively (see annotated Figure 4 of Kitano et al. below).
Regarding claim 12, Kitano et al. disclose that the battery lock out system of the battery pack (1) is dimensioned such that a padlock “may be” able to be placed through the locking hole with either of the first hole or the second hole of the locking bracket to lock in either of the first position or the second position (see annotated Figure 4 of Kitano et al. below). Moreover, it is noted that the limitation “padlock” (as set forth in the limitation “dimensioned such that a padlock may be placed”) is not deemed to be part of the claimed apparatus (i.e. battery lock out system) per MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 13, the battery pack (1) is formed by a string of battery packs (in the form of a plurality of battery modules (20)) – see paragraph [0031]; and Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
527
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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: the prior art to Lee et al. (US 2018/0205058) cited in PTO-892, as well as the five additional references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated August 25, 2023, fail to teach or suggest a battery lock out system that includes all structural features recited in the combination of independent claim 8 and claim 13, and further comprising a locking bar configured to be attached to each of the locking brackets of the string of battery packs such that moving the locking bar causes movement of each of the locking brackets (of dependent claim 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US 2018/0205058 (Lee et al.) is also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights