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 of Species II, claims 8-18 in the reply filed on 03-25-2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The non-elected claims 1-7 and 19-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration on the merits. The Office action on elected claims 8-18 follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “protective cover”, “upper opening of a first notch”, “side opening”, “receiving cavity”, “opening of the receiving cavity”, “opening of the holding cavity”, “fist (second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth) direction(s)”, and “high voltage wire interlocking connector” must be shown and reference numbers provided therefor on the drawings and in the specification, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Furthermore, claims on several instances recite alternative limitations: “one of”, e.g., “ one of the support body of the protective cover and the upper cover of the BDU defines a first engaging slot” (claim 10), “one of the elastic engaging tab and the base of the BDU defines a second engaging slot” (claim 13), “one of the base of the BDU and the upper cover of the BDU is arranged with a base engaging protrusion” (claim 16). However, the drawings depict only one configuration from the aforementioned alternative configurations. Accordingly, the drawings must show the alternative configurations as well, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 8-17, are 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.
Regarding claim 8, the claims recites limitations “an upper cover of a BDU” (line 5), “a base” (line 8), and “a first notch” (line 11) with an article “a” despite the fact that these elements have been previously recited either in the preamble or in the body of the claim. These produces ambiguity and indefiniteness, since it’s not clear whether said elements are the same as previously introduced or not.
Furthermore, limitations “the holding cavity” and “the opening of the holding cavity” (line 12) lack antecedent basis. Also, it’s not clear whether the “holding cavity” is referring to the previously introduced “receiving cavity” (line 9). It appears that claims use different terminology for the same elements. The Office reminds Applicant that the uniform terminology should be used throughout the claims. The claimed terminology should be consistent with the terminology of the specification and should follow the nomenclature of the specification. The terms and phrases used in claims must have a clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Furthermore, in claim 8 the limitations “the water blocking flange is configured to be snap-fit with the upper cover of the BDU” recited in lines 13-14 of the claim appear to be redundant, since similar limitations have been previously recited in lines 4-5 of the claim. The same goes for the limitations “the side protection member of the protective cover is configured to be snap-fit with the base of the BDU” recited in lines 14-15 of the claim.
Furthermore, in claim 9, it appears that an article “the” is omitted before the “fluid” in the last line of the claim.
Furthermore, in claim 10, the limitation “the support body of the protective cover” lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, limitations “a third direction” and “a fourth direction” introduced before the first and second directions, which produces awkwardness and ambiguity.
Furthermore, in claim 13, the limitation “a second engaging slot” is introduced without previous introduction of the first engaging slot, which produces awkwardness and ambiguity.
Furthermore, the following limitations lack proper antecedent basis: “the support body” and “the fifth (sixth) direction(s)” (claim 11), “the first direction” (claim 12), and “the second direction” (claim 13).
The remaining dependent claims have been also rejected, since they inherit the aforementioned problems of the parent claim(s).
Appropriate corrections are required. The Office directs the Applicant’s attention to the fact that claims are generally poorly written and contain numerous problems and informalities. Applicant must amend the claims accordingly. Verbose passages should be streamlined, and sentences with non-standard sentence construction or grammar should be editorially improved.
Due to the outstanding number of problems and informalities, the Office notes that the above rejections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting all remaining problems and informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above.
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, and 15-17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 215453561 to Wang et al. (hereafter “Wang”, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses (Figs. 1-4 and English translation of record):
A battery disconnect unit (BDU) case (1, 7), comprising: a base (7), an upper cover (1), and a protective cover (10, 11); wherein the protective cover comprises: a water blocking member (10), wherein the water blocking member comprises a water blocking plate (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the water blocking plate is arranged with a water blocking flange (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the water blocking flange is configured to be snap-fit with an upper cover (1) of a BDU allowing the water blocking plate to seal an upper opening (see annotated Fig. 4 below) of a first notch (see annotated Fig. 4 below) of the upper cover of the BDU; a side protection member (see annotated Fig. 4 below), disposed on a side of the water blocking member and configured to be snap-fit (via (13 and (14)) with a base (7) of the BDU and to cover a part of a side opening (see annotated Fig. 4 below) of the first notch; wherein the base of the BDU defines a receiving cavity (see annotated Fig. 3 below); the upper cover of the BDU is configured to cover an opening of the receiving cavity, the upper cover of the BDU is arranged with a first notch communicating with the receiving cavity and exposing a part of the opening of the holding cavity; and the water blocking member of the protective cover is disposed at the first notch (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the water blocking flange is configured to be snap-fit (via (11) and (12)) with the upper cover (1) of the BDU, and the side protection member of the protective cover is configured to be snap-fit with the base of the BDU (see annotated Figs. 3 and 4 below).
See next page →
PNG
media_image1.png
782
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Wang discloses that the side protection member is arranged with an elastic engaging tab (see annotated Figs. 3 and 4 above); one of the elastic engaging tab and the base of the BDU defines a second engaging slot (see annotated Figs. 3 and 4 above), and the other one of the elastic engaging tab and the base of the BDU is arranged with a BDU base engaging block (13); the second engaging slot is snap-fit with the BDU base engaging block to limit movement of protective cover in the second direction.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Wang discloses that the base (7) of the BDU defines an engaging hole, the engaging hole is located at the outside of the receiving cavity (see annotated Figs. 3 above).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Wang discloses that one of the base (7) of the BDU and the upper cover (1) of the BDU is arranged with a base engaging protrusion (13), and the other one of the base of the BDU and the upper cover of the BDU defines an upper cover engaging slot (14) that is snap-fit with the base engaging protrusion (Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Wang discloses a protective plate (see annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the upper cover (1) of the BDU defines a second notch, the protective plate is disposed within the second notch, the protective plate is connected to both the base (7) of the BDU and the upper cover (1) of the BDU (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 14, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang taken alone.
Regarding claim 14, Wang does not explicitly disclose that a fixing member is arranged on an outer side of the base of the BDU, the fixing member is configured to fix a high voltage wire interlocking connector arranged at the outside of the base. However, Wang teaches the electrical wire connector (4) (Fig. 1). The Official Notice is taken by the Office of the fact(s) outside of the current record that various fixing members to fix electrical connectors to the structures of electrical devices have been notoriously known and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein it comes within the scope of the customary practice followed by persons skilled in the art, especially as the advantages thus achieved can be readily contemplated in advance. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided in Wang a fixing member that is arranged on an outer side of the base of the BDU, the fixing member is configured to fix a high voltage wire interlocking connector arranged at the outside of the base, as an obvious design choice, in order to predictably secure the connector while achieving benefits of desired electrical connectivity, since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claims 9-12, the limitations of claim 9 (“a fluid guiding groove is defined in the upper cover of the BDU along a circumference of the first notch, the water blocking flange is configured to be snap-fit in the fluid guiding groove, and a fluid guiding gap is defined between the water blocking flange and a wall of fluid guiding groove away from the first notch”) in combination with limitations of the parent claim 8, are believed to render the combined subject matter, and claims 10-12 dependent therefrom, allowable over the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, and subject to obviation of the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: US 11721851, US 20020168566, US 2010/0053859, US 2010/0320221, US 2014/0192457, US 2014/0315069, US 2015/0064983, US 2015/0171482, US 2023/ 0198075, US 2023/0318124, US 2024/0195035, US 2025/0087812, US 5156291, US 6828058, and US 7503780 teach various housing assemblies with covers for electronic devices and battery components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835
Prosecution Insights