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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A-1 and B-1 in the reply filed on 11/10/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the alleged species are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1, with the single general inventive concept being the connection and the disconnection structure of a storage apparatus. Applicant does not believe the inclusion of a damping portion and/or an opening/closing portion changes the single general inventive concept”. This is not found persuasive because as applicant should be aware of, under PCT Rule 13.1 and 13.2, the species identified in the office action dated 09/10/25 do not relate to a single general inventive concept because although some of the species might share or include overlapping, but not fully identical, special technical features or subject, the instant special technical feature does not provide a contribution over the prior art, it is not novel and, indeed, it is known in the art as set forth in the prior art rejection, infra, under Section 102 and/or Section 103 infra. As a result of the prior art rejection, in the present application, lack of unity of the invention is directly evident "a posteriori", after taking the prior art into consideration because it has been established that the special technical feature, which is known in the art, does not define a contribution over the prior art (See MPEP 1850 Unity of Invention Before the International Searching Authority).
Furthermore, as previously set forth in the office action dated 09/10/25, Species A-1/2 and B-1/2 do not relate to a single general inventive concept or special technical feature. For example, the special technical feature of Species A-2 (i.e., the damping portion) is not present in Species A-1. Similarly, the special technical feature of Species B-2 (i.e., the opening/closing portion) is not present in Species B-1. Ipso facto, in the current application, lack of unity of the invention is also directly evident "a priori", after taking the subject matter specifically claimed in claims 1 and, and claims 1 and 9 into consideration. As such, it has been further established that Species A-1/2 and B-1/2 do not necessarily share the very same special technical feature for purposes of claimed subject matter examination.
Therefore, all of the arguments articulated by the applicant do not substantiate withdrawal of lack of unity under PCT Rule 13.1-13.2, and under 35 USC 121 and 372 as applicable. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/13/23 and 02/28/24 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/13/23.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “Provided”, etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. It does not appear to capture the essence of the disclosed/claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by the publication WO 2019/176242 (hereinafter WO’242).
As to claims 1-2:
WO’242 discloses that it is known in the art to make an apparatus for storing/holding a battery including an electrical connector for connecting the battery (Abstract; 0065-0075; see Figures 1-2, 5-8 & 10) including an opening for inserting and removing the battery and a holding/storing compartment/space for holding/accommodating and supporting the battery and including a part/component/element for allowing connection/disconnection of the battery terminal/pole to the electrical connector, thereby restricting/limiting movement of the connection/disconnection position in order to maintain the electrical connecting between both the battery terminal/pole and the electrical connector of the battery holding/storing apparatus (Abstract; 0065-0075; see Figures 1-2, 5-7 & 10). Figures 1-2, 5-8 & 10, infra, illustrate the structure of the apparatus including the opening, the holding/storing compartment and the electrical connection for allowing connection/disconnection of the battery terminal/pole to the electrical connector.
PNG
media_image1.png
648
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
574
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
654
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
656
524
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
716
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
722
522
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
698
456
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to claims 4-5:
Figures 6-8 and 10, supra, depict the portable/removable part/portion/section/component provided with the grip for a user/worker (see Figures 6-8 & 10). It is evident from observing Figures 6-8 & 10 that the portable/removable part/portion/section/component including the grip is movable in upward and downward directions (see Figures 6-8 & 10); and the presence of mechanical connections (i.e., applicant’s restricting portion including structurally undefined engagement/disengagement elements) for fixing of the portable/removable part/portion/section/component to the battery holding/storing apparatus/structure. Examiner’s note, in the absence of well-defined restricting portion/element(s) and engagement-disengagement element(s)/components, it is deemed that the mechanical connectors/fixing elements WO’242 for connecting/fixing the portable/removable part/portion/section/component to the battery holding apparatus are sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed and structurally defined restricting portion, and engagement/engaged portions and/or engagement/disengagement components.
PNG
media_image5.png
716
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
722
522
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
698
456
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Thus, the present claims are anticipated.
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.
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication WO 2019/176242 (hereinafter WO’242) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sakai et al 10916742.
WO’242 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons manifested supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the operating portion including the engagement/disengagement portions/parts.
As to claim 6:
Sakai et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a battery pack for an electrical device (Abstract; see Claim 1; Col 4, line 42 to COL 5, line 25; see Figures 2 and 5A-C; 6A-C & 9A-D)including one or more battery cells; and a connector portion including a first terminal portion wherein the connector portion is configure to be detachably engaged with a connection portion of the electrical device including a second terminal portion and a hole, wherein the first terminal portion is configured to be connected to the second terminal portion (Abstract; see Claim 1; Col 4, line 42 to COL 5, line 25; see Figures 2 and 5A-C; 6A-C & 9A-D).
PNG
media_image8.png
444
690
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
336
678
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
660
442
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
664
268
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, it would have been would have been obvious to a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the removable/operating portion of WO’242 including the engagement/disengagement portions/parts as taught by Sakai et al because Sakai et al teach that the specifically disclosed battery housing including respective connector portions configured to be detachably engaged allow to make insertions by sliding and fitting by a single point fulcrum, thereby enhancing and increasing the waterproofness of the battery storage apparatus. Further, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, or based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a detailed search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the battery storage apparatus comprising all of the claimed components/elements satisfying the specific structural and functional interrelationship as recited in dependent claims 7 and 8, respectively.
Claims 7-8 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 pm).
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752