DETAILED ACTION Claim Analysis The present application contains one active independent claim(s) (claim 1) and sixteen active dependent claims (claims 2 - 17). Examiner’s Comments The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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 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. Column and line ( or Paragraph Number ) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “ Figure 1, element 1 ” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”. 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. (a)(2) T he claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (g)(1) D uring the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other. A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim. Claim s 1 – 5, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by IDS references D1 or D6 on the European Written Opinion filed 2/24/2025; specifically, D1 is JP 2009-131089 A to Sanyo Elec. Co. and D6 is JP 2020-184875 A to KMTEC Co. This rejection is, essentially, a duplicate of the one set forth in the Written Opinion . With regard to independent claim 1, document D1 discloses ( see fig 1 and 2; the references in parentheses apply to this document ): A battery pack comprising: a battery module having at least one battery cell; a pack case configured to accommodate the battery module; and a connection guide unit provided on at least one side of the pack case and configured to be accessible to electrical members of two or more connection types ( 94, 95, 96 ). Similarly , document D6 also disclose all the technical features of claim 1: D6 ( see fig. 2 ): Battery pack (fig 2), connection guide unit ( 11, 12, 13, 10, 21, 22, 23 ) . Regarding c laim 2 , D1 discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in the Written Opinion ( fig 1, 94-96 ). Similarly, D 6 discloses the claimed limitation as well ( fig 2, elements 11, 12, 13, 10, 21, 22, 23 ) . Regarding c laim 3 , D1 discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in the Written Opinion ( fig 1, 94-96 ). Similarly, D6 discloses the claimed limitations as well ( fig 2, elements 11, 12, 13, 10, 21, 22, 23 ) . Regarding c laim 4 , D1 discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in the Written Opinion ( fig 1, 94-96 ). Similarly, D6 discloses the claimed limitations as well ( fig 2, elements 11, 12, 13, 10, 21, 22, 23 ) . Regarding c laim 5 , D1 discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in the Written Opinion ( fig 1, 94-96 ). Similarly, D6 discloses the claimed limitations as well ( fig 2, elements 11, 12, 13, 10, 21, 22, 23 ) . Regarding c laim 14 , D1 discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in the Written Opinion ( fig 1 and 2 ). Similarly, D6 discloses the claimed limitations as well ( fig 2 ) . Regarding c laim 1 5 , D1 discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in the Written Opinion ( fig 1 and 2 ). Similarly, D6 discloses the claimed limitations as well ( fig 2 ) . Claim s 1, 2, 5, 12 – 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Scherdin (U.S. Patent App. No. 2018/0086217 A1 ). Regarding claim s 1 and 15 , Scherdin disclose s a battery pack ( Title; Abstract ) comprising: a battery module ( ibid: battery unit ) having at least one battery cell ( Paragraph 0031 ) ; a pack case configured to accommodate the battery module ( Paragraphs 0036 – 0048: “frame structure” and/or “housing structure” ) ; and a connection guide provided on at least one side of the pack case and configured to be accessible to electrical members of two or more connection types ( Figures and at least Paragraphs 0026 – 0027 ) . Regarding claim 2, Scherdin discloses that the connection is accessible to different types ( ibid: 3 types shown in Figures and discussed in Paragraphs 0026 -0027, for example ). Regarding claim 5, Scherdin discloses that the connectors as accessible to an outside of the case ( see Figures and citations above ). The Examiner also notes that it wouldn’t be much use if a user couldn’t access the connection guide …. Regarding claims 12, 13 and 17, Scherdin discloses sliding members meeting the claimed limitations ( Figures 2 – 4 and at least Paragraphs 0037 – 0048 ). Regarding claim 14, Scherdin discloses connection guides meeting the claimed limitations. Regarding the limitation(s) “configured to guide the connection between the battery pack and an inverter ” this is (an) intended use limitation(s) and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. Note that in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim . In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See MPEP Form Paragraph 7-37-09. In the instant case, the claim is directed to a battery pack, not a battery pack _and_ inverter combination apparatus and the ‘configured to’ language is an intended use of how the battery pack is being used. The disclosed battery pack can clearly be connected to a wide range of devices, including inverters, etc., and, therefore, is deemed to clearly meet the claimed intended use ( see citations above and entire disclosure of Scherdin vis a vis its use in vehicles ). 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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience. Claim s 6 – 1 1 and 1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over references D1 and D6 as applied above , and further in view with reference D3 (U.S. Patent App. No. 2015/0171542 A1 to William et al.) . Regarding claims 6 – 10, 12, and 13, these rejections are essentially duplicates of the one in the provided Written Opinion . References D1 and D6 are relied upon as set forth above. Neither reference D1 nor D6 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 6 – 13, 16 or 17 in explicit fashion, at least according to the Written Opinion . However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that these limitations (in claims 6 – 10, 12, and 13) are deemed obvious variations well within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons set forth in the Written Opinion filed on the February 24, 2025 IDS, as reproduced below. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the A pplicants ’ invention to modify the device of reference D1 or D6 to meet the claimed limitations as recognized by a skilled artisan and as further taught by reference D3, below. Regarding c laim 6 - 8: t hese additional features are obvious from the combination of documents D1 (or equally D6) and D3 (see fig 5A, 5B, see connection guider 52 and 20) . Regarding c laim 9 , t hese additional features are obvious from the combination of documents D1 (or equally D6) and D3 (see fig 5A, 5B clockwise / anti clockwise for opening / closing) . Regarding c laim 10 , t hese additional features are obvious from the combination of documents D1 (or equally D6) and D3 (to fix shaft portion in end position fig 5A) . Regarding c laim 14 , these limitations are obvious in view of D1, fig 1 and 2, suitable to and D6, fig 2, suitable to . Regarding cla im 15 , these limitations are obvious in view of D1, fig 1 and 2 and D6, fig 2 . Claim s 12, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over references D1 and D6 as applied above, and further in view of Scherdin (‘217 A1) . References D1 and D6 are relied upon as set forth above. Neither reference D1 nor D6 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 12, 13 or 17. However, regarding claims 12, 13 and 17, Scherdin discloses that having slider assemblies meeting the claimed limitations to protect the connectors while restricting the possibility of a user accidentally connecting multiple connections simultaneously are known in the art ( Figures 2 – 4 and at least Paragraphs 0037 – 0048 ). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant s ’ invention to modify the device of references D1 or D6 to meet the claimed limitations of claims 12, 13 and 17 as taught by Scherdin as it ensures a user will not accidentally connect multiple connections at the same time. Claim s 3, 4, 6 – 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Scherdin as applied above , the above evidenced by CN 107809025 A . See provided Abstract Translation of CN ‘025 A and, more importantly, the figures thereof. Scherdin is relied upon as described above. Regarding claim s 3 and 4 , Scherdin fail s to disclose connectors on different sides meeting the claimed limitations. However, the Scherdin teach es that the disclosed embodiments are not limiting and that the key concept is to provide multiple connectors for different connector types and a means to protect against a user accidentally using two different connectors at the same time. The Examiner notes that a skilled artisan would readily appreciate that whether the connectors were on the same side or different sides meeting the claimed limitations, such a structure would result in a functionally equivalent battery pack. Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, the disclosed and claimed structures are deemed functional equivalents in the field of suitable structures for providing a battery pack having multiple, different connectors that are protected from accidental misuse. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). Regarding claims 3 and 4, Scherdin fail s to disclose connectors on different sides meeting the claimed limitations. However, the Scherdin teach es that the disclosed embodiments are not limiting and that the key concept is to provide multiple connectors for different connector types and a means to protect against a user accidentally using two different connectors at the same time. The Examiner notes that a skilled artisan would readily appreciate that whether the connectors were on the same side or different sides meeting the claimed limitations, such a structure would result in a functionally equivalent battery pack. Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, the disclosed and claimed structures are deemed functional equivalents in the field of suitable structures for providing a battery pack having multiple, different connectors that are protected from accidental misuse. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). Regarding claims 6 - 9 , Scherdin fail s to disclose a rotating shaft meeting the claimed limitations. However, the Scherdin teach es that the disclosed embodiments are not limiting and that the key concept is to provide multiple connectors for different connector types and a means to protect against a user accidentally using two different connectors at the same time. The Examiner notes that a skilled artisan would readily appreciate that there are many ways to provide access to a single connector at a time. This includes having connectors on a rotating shaft, wherein only a single connector is exposed, as evidenced by CN ‘025 A figures and as discussed in the European Written Opinion cited and applied herein . S uch a structure would result in a functionally equivalent battery pack. Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, the disclosed and claimed structures are deemed functional equivalents in the field of suitable structures for providing a battery pack having multiple, different connectors that are protected from accidental misuse. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). Regarding claims 10, 11 and 16, it is well known in rotating object (gears, for example) to provide a ‘stopper’ to stop the rotation as a desired point from a user perspective. Simple google searches return images such as and , etc. While these are illustrating rotating gears, the concept of a stopper meeting the claimed limitations is deemed clearly within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art as one would not want the shaft portion to rotate indefinitely as it would be difficult to plug in a connector if the connector guide kept moving as the user was attempting to plug the connector in. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the A pplicant s ’ invention to modify the device of Scherdin to use “stoppers” meeting the claimed limitations to prevent unwanted rotation, especially when a user is attempting to plug a connector into the connector guides, as a skilled artisan would recognize that having the connector guides rotating at this time would make connection difficult and potentially lead to bent connectors or shocks to the user. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1505 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1291 . 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 M BERNATZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785 March 25, 2026