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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed October 25, 2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith. 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. Claim(s) 1-2 & 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowers US Pat. 3,865,419 . With respect to claim 1 , Bowers teaches a handle for a battery (16; Fig. 1), comprising: a body comprising first end ( first end of 16; Fig. 1) , a second end opposite the first end ( second end of 16 ; Fig. 1) , and a grip portion extending between the first end and the second end in a first direction ( grip ; Fig. 1) , wherein the body is removably attachable to the battery via at least one battery terminal ( a strap for manual engagement by the user as a battery lifter; See the Abstract) , and the at least one battery terminal is configured to be in electrical connection with the battery (terminal is inherently function by providing electrical connection ) . With respect to claim 2, the at least one battery terminal comprises a plurality of terminals including a first terminal (1 4 ; Fig. 1) and a second terminal (13; Fig. 1) , the first terminal is configured to connect to a first polarity of the battery through the first end of the body (14 first terminal passes the first end ; Fig. 1; the terminal inherent is a cathode or anode terminal to function) ; and the second terminal is configured to connect to a second polarity of the battery through the second end of the body (14 second terminal passes the second end ; Fig. 1; the terminal inherent is a cathode or anode terminal to function) . With respect to claim 4, the first end and the second end each comprise a bottom portion having a hole (Figs 1 & 3) ; and the hole is configured to receive a terminal of the plurality of terminals ( terminals 13 & 14 fit through holes at the ends; Figs 1 & 3) . Therefore, the instant cla i ms are anticipated by Bowers. 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. Claim(s) 1-2 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 大湊 清治 JP-H0639623-U . With respect to claim 1 , 大湊 清治 teaches a handle (6; Fig. 1) for a battery ( battery 1; Fig. 1), comprising: a body comprising first end ( first end ; Fig. 1) , a second end opposite the first end ( second end ; Fig. 1) , and a grip portion extending between the first end and the second end in a first direction ( grip ; Fig. 1) , wherein the body is removably attachable to the battery via at least one battery terminal ( battery suspending device is used when a battery installed in a car is removed from the car for repair or replacement, or when a new one is installed in the car; [0001]) , and the at least one battery terminal is configured to be in electrical connection with the battery ( positive terminal locking tool 3, the negative terminal locking tool 5; [0014]; positive terminal 2 and negative terminal 4; [0019]) . With respect to claim 2 , the at least one battery terminal comprises a plurality of terminals including a first terminal and a second terminal (2, 4; Fig. 1) , the first terminal (2; Fig. 1) is configured to connect to a first polarity of the battery through the first end of the body; and the second terminal (4; Fig. 1) is configured to connect to a second polarity of the battery through the second end of the body (Examiners note; terminals must have opposing polarity for the battery to function) . With respect to claim 4 , the first end and the second end each comprise a bottom portion (21, 23; Fig. 2) having a hole (15, 23; Fig. 2) ; and the hole is configured to receive a terminal of the plurality of terminal s (2, 4; Fig. 2). Therefore, the instant cla i ms are anticipated by 大湊 清治 . 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. Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers US Pat. 3,865,419 in view of Lelli US P ub. 2023/0054685 . Bowers teaches a handle for a battery (16; Fig. 1), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. Bowers does not teach or suggest: a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals ( claim 3 ) . Lelli teaches that it is ell known in the art to employ: a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals (terminal caps; [0039]; claim 3 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a plurality of protective caps of Lelli , to cover the plurality of terminals in the battery of Bowser, in order to protect the terminal from harsh environment while not in use. Also, duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). 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. Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 大湊 清治 JP-H0639623-U in view of Lelli US P ub. 2023/0054685 . 大湊 清治 teaches a handle for a battery (6; Fig. 1), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. 大湊 清治 does not teach or suggest: a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals ( claim 3 ) . Lelli teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals (terminal caps; [0039]; claim 3 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a plurality of protective caps of Lelli , to cover the plurality of terminals in the battery of 大湊 清治 , in order to protect the terminal from harsh environment while not in use. Also, duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). 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. Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers US Pat. 3,865,419 in view of Rangi DE 102021127671. Bowers teaches a handle for a battery (16; Fig. 1), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. Bowers does not teach or suggest: a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals ( claim 3 ) . Rangi teaches that it is w ell known in the art to employ: a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals (terminal cover 40; Fig. 8; claim 3 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a plurality of protective caps of Rangi , to cover the plurality of terminals in the battery of Bowser, in order to protect the terminal from harsh environment while not in use. Also, duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). 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. Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 大湊 清治 JP-H0639623-U in view of Rangi DE 102021127671 . 大湊 清治 teaches a handle for a battery (6; Fig. 1), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. 大湊 清治 does not teach or suggest: a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals ( claim 3 ) . Rangi teaches that it is w ell known in the art to employ: a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals (terminal cover 40; Fig. 8; claim 3 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a plurality of protective caps of Rangi , to cover the plurality of terminals in the battery of 大湊 清治 , in order to protect the terminal from harsh environment while not in use. Also, duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). 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. Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers US Pat. 3,865,419 in view of Chen CN 213124627U . Bowers teaches a handle for a battery (16; Fig. 1), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. Bowers does not teach or suggest: the bottom portions extend in the first direction and in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; and the first end and the second end each further comprise a first vertical extension and a second vertical extension spaced apart from the first vertical extension in the second direction by a gap, wherein the hole overlaps the gap ( claim 5 ) . Chen teaches that it is well known in the art to employ a handle for an electrical device (Fig. 13) wherein : and the first end and the second end each further comprise a first vertical extension (1 st VE; Fig. 13 ) and a second vertical extension spaced apart from the first vertical extension (2nd VE; Fig. 13) in the second direction by a gap ( gap ; Fig. 13) , wherein the hole overlaps the gap ( Fig. 13; claim 5 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the first end and the second end each further comprise a first vertical extension and a second vertical extension spaced apart from the first vertical extension in the second direction by a gap, wherein the hole overlaps the gap of Chen , in the handle of Bowser, in order to improve the structural integrity of the handle to the case. With respect to the bottom portions extend ing in the first direction and in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; in the handle of Bowers in view of Chen , as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). 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. Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 大湊 清治 JP-H0639623-U in view of Chen CN 213124627U. 大湊 清治 teaches a handle for a battery (6; Fig. 1), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. With respect to the bottom portions extend in the first direction and in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 1). 大湊 清治 does not teach or suggest: the first end and the second end each further comprise a first vertical extension and a second vertical extension spaced apart from the first vertical extension in the second direction by a gap, wherein the hole overlaps the gap ( claim 5 ) . Chen teaches that it is well known in the art to employ : a handle for an electrical device (Fig. 13) wherein: and the first end and the second end each further comprise a first vertical extension (1 st VE; Fig. 13) and a second vertical extension spaced apart from the first vertical extension (2nd VE; Fig. 13) in the second direction by a gap ( gap ; Fig. 13) , wherein the hole overlaps the gap ( Fig. 13; claim 5 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the first end and the second end each further comprise a first vertical extension and a second vertical extension spaced apart from the first vertical extension in the second direction by a gap, wherein the hole overlaps the gap of Chen , in the handle of 大湊 清治 , in order to improve the structural integrity of attaching the handle to the case. 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. Claim (s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers US Pat. 3,865,419 in view of Chen CN 213124627U in view of Rangi DE 102021127671 . Bowers in view of Chen teach a handle for a battery (16; Fig. 1 ’ Bowers ), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove . With respect to claim 6 , Chen teaches a first portion of the gap (gap; Fig. 13) separates the first vertical extension (1 st VE; Fig. 13) and the second portion of the terminals , (terminals would be at 34 for Bowser; Fig. 13) and a second portion of the gap separates the second vertical extension (2nd VE; Fig. 13) and the second portion of the terminals , (terminals would be at 34 for Bowser; Fig. 13). With respect to claim 7, Chen teaches a central nut (34; Fig. 13) ; and a central nut portion (34; Fig. 13) having a wider width in the second direction than the first threaded portion (34; Fig. 13) and wherein the first portion of the gap separates the first vertical extension and the central nut portion (gap. 1 st VE; 34; Fig. 13) , and the second portion of the gap separates the second vertical extension and the central nut portion (gap. 2nd VE; 34; Fig. 13). . Bowers does not teach or suggest: a first threaded portion configured to connect to the battery through the hole; and a second portion configured to connect to an external module and extending vertically from the first threaded portion ( claim 6 ) ; the second portion of the terminals comprises a second threaded portion ; the handle further comprising a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals, wherein the plurality of protective caps cover the second threaded portion and the central nut portion ( claim 7 ) . Rangi teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a first threaded portion ( 1 st portion; 56; F ig. 8) configured to connect to the battery through the hole (56; Fig. 8) ; and a second portion configured to connect to an external module and extending vertically from the first threaded portion ( 2 nd portion; 56; claim 6 ); the second portion of the terminals comprises a second threaded portion and the second portion (2 nd portion; 56) ; the handle further comprising a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals, wherein the plurality of protective caps cover the second threaded portion and the central nut portion ( 40; claim 7 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a first threaded portion configured to connect to the battery through the hole; and a second portion configured to connect to an external module and extending vertically from the first threaded portion of Rangi, in the handle of Bowers in view of Chen ; in order to secure the connection between the terminal and the battery and external module. Rangi is relied upon to show the conventionality of employing threads in terminals. The skilled artisan recognizes that the turn force created by threads increases structural integrity of attachments. 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. Claim (s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable 大湊 清治 JP-H0639623-U in view of Chen CN 213124627U in view of Rangi DE 102021127671. 大湊 清治 in view of Chen teach a handle for a battery (6; Fig. 1 ; 大湊 清治 ), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. With respect to claim 6 , Chen teaches a first portion of the gap (gap; Fig. 13) separates the first vertical extension (1 st VE; Fig. 13) and the second portion of the terminals, (terminals would be at 34 for Bowser; Fig. 13) and a second portion of the gap separates the second vertical extension (2nd VE; Fig. 13) and the second portion of the terminals, (terminals would be at 34 for Bowser; Fig. 13). With respect to claim 7, Chen teaches a central nut (34; Fig. 13); and a central nut portion (34; Fig. 13) having a wider width in the second direction than the first threaded portion (34; Fig. 13) and wherein the first portion of the gap separates the first vertical extension and the central nut portion (gap. 1 st VE; 34; Fig. 13) , and the second portion of the gap separates the second vertical extension and the central nut portion (gap. 2nd VE; 34; Fig. 13). . 大湊 清治 does not teach or suggest: a first threaded portion configured to connect to the battery through the hole; and a second portion configured to connect to an external module and extending vertically from the first threaded portion ( claim 6 ); the second portion of the terminals comprises a second threaded portion ; the handle further comprising a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals, wherein the plurality of protective caps cover the second threaded portion and the central nut portion ( claim 7 ) . Rangi teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a first threaded portion (1 st portion; 56; Fig. 8) configured to connect to the battery through the hole (56; Fig. 8) ; and a second portion configured to connect to an external module and extending vertically from the first threaded portion (2 nd portion; 56; claim 6 ); the second portion of the terminals comprises a second threaded portion and the second portion (2 nd portion; 56) ; the handle further comprising a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals, wherein the plurality of protective caps cover the second threaded portion and the central nut portion (40; claim 7 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a first threaded portion configured to connect to the battery through the hole; and a second portion configured to connect to an external module and extending vertically from the first threaded portion of Rangi, in the handle of 大湊 清治 in view of Chen ; in order to secure the connection between the terminal and the battery and external module. Rangi is relied upon to show the conventionality of employing threads in terminals. The skilled artisan recognizes that the turn force created by threads increases structural integrity of attachments. 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. Claim (s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers US Pat. 3,865,419 in view of Gallup et al. WO 2015153628. Bowers teaches a handle for a battery (16; Fig. 1), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. Bowers does not teach or suggest: the body comprises a recess shaped and sized to store a tool ( claim 8 ); a tool within the recess, the tool comprising a wrench configured to attach and detach the plurality of terminals and the battery ( claim 9 ); the body comprises a rigid body ( claim 10 ). Gallup teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a recess shaped and sized to store a tool ( outer shell 22; [0037]; Fig. 1; storage pouch; [0001]; claim 8 ); a tool within the recess, the tool comprising a wrench configured to attach and detach the plurality of terminals and the battery ( hand tool; [0001]; claim 9 ); the body comprises a rigid body ( rigid outer shell 22; [0036]; claim 10 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a recess shaped and sized to store a tool of Gallup , in the handle of Bowers, in order to improve convivence of accessing tools for repair. 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. Claim (s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 大湊 清治 JP-H0639623-U in view of Gallup et al. WO 2015153628. 大湊 清治 teaches a handle for a battery (6; Fig. 1), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. 大湊 清治 does not teach or suggest: the body comprises a recess shaped and sized to store a tool ( claim 8 ); a tool within the recess, the tool comprising a wrench configured to attach and detach the plurality of terminals and the battery ( claim 9 ); the body comprises a rigid body ( claim 10 ). Gallup teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a recess shaped and sized to store a tool ( outer shell 22; [0037]; Fig. 1; storage pouch; [0001]; claim 8 ); a tool within the recess, the tool comprising a wrench configured to attach and detach the plurality of terminals and the battery ( hand tool; [0001]; claim 9 ); the body comprises a rigid body ( rigid outer shell 22; [0036]; claim 10 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a recess shaped and sized to store a tool of Gallup , in the handle of 大湊 清治 , in order to improve convivence of accessing tools for repair. 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. Claim (s) 11-14, 17 & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama US Pub. 2016/0226054 in view of Bowers US Pat. 3,865,419 . With respect to claim 11 , Kusama teaches a battery comprising: a top face (1a; Fig. 2) , comprising a first set of terminal inputs (40, 50; Fig. 2) and a second set of terminals inputs ( 14a, 15a; Fig. 2). With respect to claim 1 2 , the top face extends in a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (top of 11a; Fig. 2) ; the first set of terminal inputs are arranged in a middle portion of one of the first direction and the second direction (40, 50; Fig. 2) ; and the second set of terminal inputs are arranged in an outside portion ( 14a, 15a; Fig. 2) . With respect to claim 1 9 , a method of assembling a battery package (Fig. 2) comprising: receiving a battery, wherein the battery comprises a top face (11a; Fig. 2) including a first set of terminal inputs (40, 50; Fig. 2) and a second set of terminals inputs ( 14a, 15a; Fig. 2). Kusama does not teach or suggest: a handle removably attached to the battery, wherein a position of the handle is adjustable such that it is attached to the first set of terminal inputs in a first position, and attached to the second set of terminal inputs in a second position ( claim s 11 & 19 ); one set of terminals of the one of the first direction and a second direction ( claim 1 2 ); the handle is in the first position ( claim 1 3 ); the handle is in the second position ( claim 1 4 ); the handle is attached to the first set of terminal inputs or the second set of terminal inputs via a plurality of battery terminals ( claim 1 7 ) ; the handle is attached via a pair of battery terminals ( claim 20 ) . Bowser teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a handle removably attached to the battery (16; Fig. 1; claim s 11 & 19 ) , the handle is in the first position (16; Fig. 1; claim 1 3 ); the handle is in the second position ( 16; Fig. 1; claim 1 4 ); the handle is attached to the first set of terminal inputs or the second set of terminal inputs via a plurality of battery terminals (16; Fig. 1; claim 1 7 ); the handle is attached via a pair of battery terminals ( 16; Fig. 1; claim 20 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the handle removably attached to the battery of Bowers, to attach to the batter of Kusama, for removal of a battery from an automotive or other vehicle and for readily moving the battery from place to place as taught by Bowser (Background) . With respect to a position of the handle being adjustable such that it is attached to the first set of terminal inputs in a first position, and attached to the second set of terminal inputs in a second position ( claim 11 & 19 ); it would have been obvious in the battery lifting handle of Kusama in view of Bowser, to lift and move batteries of different sizes, and various terminal distances. Furthermore, adjusting of essential working parts of a device is pri ma facie obvious. See In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) With respect to one set of terminals in one of the first direction and the other set of terminals in a second direction ( claim 1 2 ); it would have been obvious in the battery handle of Kusama in view of Bowser, as duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). 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. Claim (s) 11-14, 17 & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama US Pub. 2016/0226054 in view of 大湊 清治 JP-H0639623-U . With respect to claim 11 , Kusama teaches a battery comprising: a top face (1a; Fig. 2), comprising a first set of terminal inputs (40, 50; Fig. 2) and a second set of terminals inputs ( 14a, 15a; Fig. 2). With respect to claim 1 2 , the top face extends in a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (top of 11a; Fig. 2) ; the first set of terminal inputs are arranged in a middle portion of one of the first direction and the second direction (40, 50; Fig. 2) ; and the second set of terminal inputs are arranged in an outside portion ( 14a, 15a; Fig. 2) . With respect to claim 1 9 , a method of assembling a battery package (Fig. 2) comprising: receiving a battery, wherein the battery comprises a top face (11a; Fig. 2) including a first set of terminal inputs (40, 50; Fig. 2) and a second set of terminals inputs ( 14a, 15a; Fig. 2). Kusama does not teach or suggest: a handle removably attached to the battery, wherein a position of the handle is adjustable such that it is attached to the first set of terminal inputs in a first position, and attached to the second set of terminal inputs in a second position ( claim s 11 & 19 ); one set of terminals of the one of the first direction and a second direction ( claim 1 2 ); the handle is in the first position ( claim 1 3 ); the handle is in the second position ( claim 1 4 ); the handle is attached to the first set of terminal inputs or the second set of terminal inputs via a plurality of battery terminals ( claim 1 7 ); the handle is attached via a pair of battery terminals ( claim 20 ) . 大湊 清治 teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a handle removably attached to the battery (6; Fig. 1; claim s 11 & 19 ) , the handle is in the first position (6; Fig. 1; claim 1 3 ); the handle is in the second position ( 6; Fig. 1; claim 1 4 ); the handle is attached to the first set of terminal inputs or the second set of terminal inputs via a plurality of battery terminals (6; Fig. 1; claim 1 7 ); the handle is attached via a pair of battery terminals ( 6; Fig. 1; claim 20 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the handle removably attached to the battery of 大湊 清治 , to attach to the batter of Kusama, for installation of a battery from an automotive or other vehicle and for readily moving the battery from place to place as taught by 大湊 清治 [0004]-[0005] . With respect to a position of the handle being adjustable such that it is attached to the first set of terminal inputs in a first position, and attached to the second set of terminal inputs in a second position ( claim 11 & 19 ); it would have been obvious in the battery lifting handle of Kusama in view of 大湊 清治 , to lift and move batteries of different sizes, and various terminal distances. Furthermore, adjusting of essential working parts of a device is pri ma facie obvious. See In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) With respect to one set of terminals in one of the first direction and the other set of terminals in a second direction ( claim 1 2 ); it would have been obvious in the battery handle of Kusama in view of 大湊 清治 , as duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). 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. Claim (s) 1 5 -1 6 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama US Pub. 2016/0226054 in view of Bowers US Pat. 3,865,419 , and further in view of Chen CN 213124627U . Kusama in view of Bowers teach a battery comprising: a top face (1a; Fig. 2), comprising a first set of terminal inputs (40 , 50; Fig. 2) and a second set of terminals inputs ( 14a, 15a; Fig. 2) and a handle (16; Fig. 1; Bowser) , as described in the rejection recited hereinabove . With respect to claim 15 , Bowser teaches a first end, a second end opposite the first end, and a grip portion extending, in a first direction, between the first end and the second end (Fig. 1) ; the first end comprising a first base having a first hole (Fig. 1) . With respect to claim 1 6 , Kusama teaches the inputs (40, 50; Fig. 2) and a second set of terminals inputs (14a, 15a; Fig. 2) are spaced apart in the second direction (Fig. 1) ; the first set of terminal inputs comprises a first positive polarity input and a first negative polarity input spaced apart in the first direction by a first distance (40 positive polarity bolt , 50 negative polarity bolt; [0041]; Fig. 2) ; the second set of terminal inputs (14a, 15a; Fig. 2) comprises a second positive polarity terminal and a second negative polarity terminal spaced apart in the first direction by the first distance ( positive electrode bolt 14a, negative electrode bolt 15a; [0041]; Fig. 2). Further concerning claim 16 , Bowser teaches the first hole and the second hole of the handle are spaced apart in the first direction by the first distance (Fig. 1). Kusama does not teach or suggest: a first vertical wall, a second vertical wall separated from the first vertical wall in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction by a first gap, and a first inclined wall between the first vertical wall and the second vertical wall in the second direction and inclined towards the grip portion; the second end comprising a second base having a second hole, a third vertical wall, a fourth vertical wall separated from the third vertical wall in the second direction a second gap, and a second inclined wall between the third vertical wall and the fourth vertical wall in the second direction and inclined towards the grip portion ( claim 15 ) . Chen teaches that it is well known in the art to employ a handle comprises: a first vertical wa l l (1 st VE; Fig. 13) , a second vertical wall (2 nd VE; Fig. 13) separated from the first vertical wall in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction by a first gap (gap; Fig. 13) , the second end comprising a second base having a second hole (Fig. 13) , a third vertical wall (3rd VE; Fig. 13) , a fourth vertical wall (4th VE; Fig. 13) separated from the third vertical wall in the second direction a second gap, ( gap; Fig. 13; claim 15 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ : a first vertical wall, a second vertical wall separated from the first vertical wall in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction by a first gap, the second end comprising a second base having a second hole, a third vertical wall, a fourth vertical wall separated from the third vertical wall in the second direction a second gap of Chen, in the handle and battery of Kusama in view of Bowers , in order to improve the structural integrity of attaching the handle to the case. With respect to a first inclined wall between the first vertical wall and the second vertical wall in the second direction and inclined towards the grip portion; and a second inclined wall between the third vertical wall and the fourth vertical wall in the second direction and inclined towards the grip portion ( claim 1 5 ) ; it would have been obvious in the handle and battery of Kusama in view of Bowers and Chen, in order to improve the handle grip to the terminals. Bowser teaches an incline wall at the holes od the end portion. See 24, Fig. 1. With respect to the first and second directions ; it would have been obvious in the battery handle of Kusama in view of Bowers and Chen , as duplication of essential working parts of a devic e is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). 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. Claim(s) 1 8 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama US Pub. 2016/0226054 in view of Bowers US Pat. 3,865,419, and further in view of Rangi DE 102021127671 Kusama in view of Bowers teach a battery comprising: a top face (1a; Fig. 2), comprising a first set of terminal inputs (40 , 50; Fig. 2) and a second set of terminals inputs ( 14a, 15a; Fig. 2) and a handle (16; Fig. 1; Bowser), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. With respect to claim 18 , Kusama teaches a second threaded portion; and a central nut portion having a wider width than the first threaded portion (nuts 16 & 60; Fig. 1). Kusama does not teach or suggest: the battery terminal inputs compris ing threaded sidewalls; and the plurality of battery terminals comprise: a first threaded portion configured to interface with the threaded sidewalls; and the second threaded portion; the battery further comprising a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals, wherein the plurality of protective caps cover the second threaded portion and the central nut portion ( claim 18 ) . Rangi teaches that it is well known in the art to employ the battery terminal inputs compris ing threaded sidewalls (accommodation walls at 56; Fig. 8) ; and the plurality of battery terminals comprise: a first threaded portion configured to interface with the threaded sidewalls (1 st portion; Fig. 8) ; and the second threaded portion (2 nd portion; Fig. 8) ; the battery further comprising a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals (40; Fig. 8) ( claim 18 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ : the battery terminal inputs compris ing threaded sidewalls; and the plurality of battery terminals comprise : a first threaded portion configured to interface with the threaded sidewalls; and the second threaded portion; the battery further comprising a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals of Rangi , in the handle and battery of Kusama in view of Bowers . in order to secure the connection between the terminal and the battery and external module and to protect the terminal from harsh environment while not in use. Rangi is relied upon to show the conventionality of employing threads in terminals. The skilled artisan recognizes that the turn force created by threads increases structural integrity of attachments. With respect to the plurality of protective caps cover the second threaded portion and the central nut portion ; it would have been obvious in the handle and battery of Kusama in view of Bowers and Rangi to protect the terminal from harsh environment while not in use. Also, duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). 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. Claim(s) 1 8 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama US Pub. 2016/0226054 in view of 大湊 清治 JP-H0639623-U , and further in view of Rangi DE 102021127671 Kusama in view of 大湊 清治 teach a battery comprising: a top face (1a; Fig. 2), comprising a first set of terminal inputs (40 , 50; Fig. 2) and a second set of terminals inputs ( 14a, 15a; Fig. 2) and a handle (6; Fig. 1; 大湊 清治 ), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. With respect to claim 18 , Kusama teaches a second threaded portion; and a central nut portion having a wider width than the first threaded portion (nuts 16 & 60; Fig. 1). Kusama does not teach or suggest: the battery terminal inputs compris ing threaded sidewalls; and the plurality of battery terminals comprise: a first threaded portion configured to interface with the threaded sidewalls; and the second threaded portion; the battery further comprising a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals, wherein the plurality of protective caps cover the second threaded portion and the central nut portion ( claim 18 ) . Rangi teaches that it is well known in the art to employ the battery terminal inputs compris ing threaded sidewalls (accommodation walls at 56; Fig. 8) ; and the plurality of battery terminals comprise: a first threaded portion configured to interface with the threaded sidewalls (1 st portion; Fig. 8); and the second threaded portion (2 nd portion; Fig. 8); the battery further comprising a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals (40; Fig. 8) ( claim 18 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ : the battery terminal inputs compris ing threaded sidewalls; and the plurality of battery terminals comprise : a first threaded portion configured to interface with the threaded sidewalls; and the second threaded portion; the battery further comprising a plurality of protective caps configured to cover the plurality of terminals of Rangi , in the handle and battery of Kusama in view of 大湊 清治 . in order to secure the connection between the terminal and the battery and external module and to protect the terminal from harsh environment while not in use. Rangi is relied upon to show the conventionality of employing threads in terminals. The skilled artisan recognizes that the turn force created by threads increases structural integrity of attachments. With respect to the plurality of protective caps cover the second threaded portion and the central nut portion; it would have been obvious in the handle and battery of Kusama in view of 大湊 清治 and Rangi to protect the terminal from harsh environment while not in use. Also, duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen CN 115693007A teaches a multiterminal battery case . See Fig. 1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Monique Wills whose telephone number is (571) 272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309 . The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078 . 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Monique M Wills/ Examiner, Art Unit 172 2 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723