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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 17 includes a new limitation which states a width of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 11.4 cm and less than 19.3 cm. However, the only recitation of the width of the battery pack found in the specification limits the width to 170 mm to 180 mm (17.0 cm to 18 cm; [0041]). Thus the claimed range is significantly broader than what applicant has support for. For purpose of examination, the supported range of the width of the battery pack of 17.0 cm to 18.0 cm will be used for search and consideration.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (U.S. 20220336903) in view of Yu et al. (U.S. 20030054238), Juzkow et al. (U.S. 20190372173), and Lyons (U.S. 20140083787).
With respect to claims 1-3, Yoon discloses a tool system (vehicle) ([0005]) comprising:
a battery pack (300) for powering a (vehicle) (Fig. 1, [0022]), comprising:
a housing (310) configured to mount to the outdoor moving device (vehicle) and supported by the outdoor moving device (vehicle) (if it’s used within a vehicle and has a handle on top for placement (Fig. 1), the pack will inherently be mounted on and support by the vehicle); and
a cell module (battery module) (Fig. 2 and 4) mounted in the housing (310) and comprising a plurality of cells (100 – secondary batteries) (Fig. 2);
wherein each one of the plurality of cells (100) is cylindrical (Fig. 2).
Yoon does not disclose that a diameter of the each one of the plurality of cells is greater than or equal to 3 cm.
Yu discloses a battery comprising a plurality of cells ([0005]) and teaches that the cells with a larger diameter have increased capacity ([0005]). Thus, Yu teaches cell diameter as a result-effective variable, i.e., cell diameter affecting capacity. Applicant is reminded that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)). In this instance, it is well known in the art, as demonstrated by Yu, that an increase in cell diameter leads to an increase in capacity, thus it would be obvious to try to increase cell diameter in order to meet a desired capacity output. This rationale also applies to claims 2-3, which further limit the cell diameter to greater than or equal to 4 cm, and greater than or equal to 8 cm.
Yoon also does not disclose that the capacity of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 20 Ah, or that a ratio of the capacity of the battery pack to a weight of the battery pack is higher than or equal to 2Ah/kg. However, capacity is also a result-effective variable (see above KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), as capacity determines energy storage and deliverance over time. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to perform routine optimization to arrive at a capacity that determines the best energy storage and deliverance over time for the desired battery outputs. Further, Juzkow et al. discloses a battery pack ([0054]) and teaches that increasing the capacity of the battery in comparison to the weight helps to improve the performance of the battery ([0054]). Thus, the ratio of capacity to weight is also a known result-effective variable. Similar to the diameter of the cell, it would be obvious to try to vary the weight of the battery with respects to the capacity in order to find an optimum range in which battery performance is improved, as taught by Juzkow. This rationale also applies to claim 5, which further limits the weight of the battery pack.
Finally, Yoon does not disclose that the battery pack is used within a battery compartment body of a battery compartment of a riding lawn mower, wherein the battery compartment body includes a terminal assembly disposed therein, instead disclosing its use within a vehicle, energy storage systems, or medium- and large-scale devices that require increased capacity and output ([0005]).
Lyons discloses a battery pack (300) ([abstract]; Fig. 8) and teaches the battery pack (300) is stored in a battery compartment body (100 – battery compartment) comprising a compartment body terminal assembly (340 – cables) (Fig. 9;[0037]; [0039]), a battery compartment (60 – back panel) comprising the battery compartment body (100) (Fig. 2; [0031]), and a riding lawn mower (10 – riding vehicle) comprising the battery compartment (60) (Fig. 1A). Lyons further teaches that this assembly allows for the battery to be housed within the lawn mower (Fig. 1A; [abstract]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to use the battery pack disclosed by modified Yoon in the lawn mower and battery compartment system taught by Lyons as the battery compartment system of Lyons can house the battery pack. Applicant is reminded that a rational which supports a conclusion of obviousness would include simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I.B.). In this instance, substituting the battery pack of Yoon into the lawn mower of Lyons would still obtain the predictable result of supplying power to the lawn mower while the battery is housed in the battery compartment.
With respect to claim 4, modified Yoon does not disclose a ratio of a length of a battery cell when compared to the height of the battery pack. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, the paragraph of the applicant’s specification which details the relative dimensions of the length of the cells vs. the height of the battery pack (i.e. [0048]) does not give a reason or an affect of this ratio. Therefore, there is no evidence on the record as to how the battery pack of the instant application would perform differently than that of the prior art as a direct result of this ratio. Therefore, a ratio of a length of the battery cells of Yoon to a width of the battery pack of Yoon being in the claimed range of higher than or equal to 0.7 would be an obvious design variation.
Claims 6-7 attempt to limit the battery pack by reciting power and current requirements of the battery pack. However, voltage and amplitude are result-effective variables i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result such as electrical requirements to power a motor, turn on a light, etc. Applicant is therefore reminded that the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103."). The amount of power or current required is a result of market demand, and therefore, it would be an obvious design variation to try to adjust the voltage or current generated within the pack to meet the market demands.
With respect to claim 9, modified Yoon discloses the cell module further comprises a bracket (217 and 219 – first and second case), and the bracket (217 and 219) comprises a support structure (H1 – hollow) supporting the plurality of cells (100) (Fig. 2) and further comprises a guide structure (214 – guide protrusion portion) guiding the cell module to be mounted in the housing (310) (Fig. 4, [0085]).
With respect to claim 10, modified Yoon discloses the guide structure (214) is a guide rib (Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 11, modified Yoon discloses the guide structure (214) is a guide rib (Fig. 6) and the receiving structure (313) of the housing (310) is a groove (H2 guide groove) (Fig. 5) ([0085]). However, applicant is reminded that a rearrangement of parts is unpatentable unless the rearrangement modifies the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). In the instant case, rearranging the connection system between the housing and the bracket so that the bracket has a groove and the housing has a rib projection would not change the manner in which the bracket is slidably connected to the housing. Therefore, the claimed configuration is unpatentable.
With respect to claim 12, modified Yoon discloses the guide structure (214) is parallel to a mounting direction of the cell module (Figs. 2 and 4).
With respect to claim 13, modified Yoon discloses the guide structure (214) is perpendicular to a length direction of the each one of the plurality of cells (100) (Figs. 2 and 4).
With respect to claim 14, modified Yoon discloses the cell module further comprises a plurality of connection pole pieces (220 – busbar) (Fig. 2), each one of the plurality of connection pole pieces (220) is connected to at least two ones of the plurality of cells (100) (Fig. 4), the each one of the plurality of connection pole pieces (220) is connected to the at least two ones of the plurality of cells (100) through welding ([0068]).
Yoon does not disclose a ratio of a welding area to a surface area of the each one of the plurality of connection pole pieces is higher than or equal to 0.1. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, a battery cell would not operate differently within a battery pack based on the ratio of a weld area to a surface area of the connection pole pieces (busbars). Therefore, the recited dimension is not patentable.
Claim 15 attempts to limit the battery pack based on a welding path of the weld connecting the connection pole pieces (busbars) to the plurality of cells by limiting a “closed welding path,” otherwise described as welding in a path that creates a closed symbol or shape (i.e. circle, rectangle, polygon, etc.). Applicant is reminded that the configuration of a claimed part is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent to persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed part is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In the instant case, there is no evidence that the shape of the weld imparts significant differences to the battery pack. Therefore, the limitation is not patentable.
With respect to claim 16, modified Yoon discloses an outdoor moving device (vehicle) ([0022]), comprising:
a battery compartment and a battery pack (300) accommodated in the battery compartment (inherently present as a vehicle comprising a battery would need a place to store said battery) (Fig. 1);
wherein the battery pack (300) comprises: a housing (310) configured to mount to the battery compartment and supported by the battery compartment (again, if it’s used within a vehicle battery compartment and has a handle on top for placement (Fig. 1), the pack will inherently be mounted on and support by the vehicle’s battery compartment); and
a cell module mounted in the housing (310) and comprising a plurality of cells (100) (Fig. 2).
Yoon does not disclose a diameter of each one of the plurality of cells is greater than or equal to 4 cm.
Yu discloses a battery comprising a plurality of cells ([0005]) and teaches that the cells with a larger diameter have increased capacity ([0005]). Thus, Yu teaches cell diameter as a result-effective variable, i.e., cell diameter affecting capacity. Applicant is reminded that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)). In this instance, it is well known in the art, as demonstrated by Yu, that an increase in cell diameter leads to an increase in capacity, thus it would be obvious to try to increase cell diameter in order to meet a desired capacity output.
Yoon also does not disclose that the capacity of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 20 Ah. However, capacity is also a result-effective variable (see above KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), as capacity determines energy storage and deliverance over time. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to perform routine optimization to arrive at a capacity that determines the best energy storage and deliverance over time for the desired battery outputs.
Finally, Yoon does not disclose a ratio of a length of a battery cell when compared to the width of the battery pack. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, the paragraph of the applicant’s specification which details the relative dimensions of the length of the cells vs. the width of the battery pack (i.e. [0048]) does not give a reason or an effect of this ratio. Therefore, there is no evidence on the record as to how the battery pack of the instant application would perform differently than that of the prior art as a direct result of this ratio. Therefore, a ratio of a length of the battery cells of Yoon to a width of the battery pack of Yoon being in the claimed range of higher than or equal to 0.7 would be an obvious design variation.
With respects to the preamble limiting the battery to a “riding lawn mower,” applicant is reminded that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In this instance, as the preamble merely limits the battery’s intended use of being used in a riding lawn mower, it is not considered a limitation.
With respect to claim 17, Yoon discloses a battery pack (300) for powering an electric device ([0021]), comprising:
a housing (310) configured to mount to the electric device and supported by the electric device (again, if it’s used within an electronic device and has a handle on top for placement (Fig. 1), the pack will inherently be mounted on and support by the electronic device);
a cell module comprising a plurality of cells (100) and disposed in the housing (310) (Fig. 2); and
a terminal assembly (223 – external terminals) electrically connected to the plurality of cells (100) and used for electrically connecting the battery pack to the electric device (Fig. 2; [0070]).
Yoon does not disclose a diameter of each one of the plurality of cells is greater than or equal to 3 cm, and a ratio of the diameter of the each one of the plurality of cells to a length of the each one of the plurality of cells is higher than or equal to 0.5.
Yu discloses a battery comprising a plurality of cells ([0005]) and teaches that the cells with a larger diameter have increased capacity ([0005]). Thus, Yu teaches cell diameter as a result-effective variable, i.e., cell diameter affecting capacity. Applicant is reminded that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)). In this instance, it is well known in the art, as demonstrated by Yu, that an increase in cell diameter leads to an increase in capacity, thus it would be obvious to try to increase cell diameter in order to meet a desired capacity output.
Yoon also does not disclose a ratio of a diameter of a battery cell when compared to the length of the battery cell. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, the paragraph of the applicant’s specification which details the relative dimensions of the diameter of the cells vs. the length of the battery cells (i.e. [0048]) does not give a reason or an effect of this ratio. Therefore, there is no evidence on the record as to how the batteries of the instant application would perform differently than that of the prior art as a direct result of this ratio. Therefore, a ratio of a diameter of the battery cells of Yoon to a length of the battery cells of Yoon being in the claimed range of higher than or equal to 0.5 would be an obvious design variation.
Yoon also does not disclose that the energy of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 2 kWh. However, energy is also a result-effective variable (see above KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), as energy determines the amount of usable electrical power delivered from the battery output. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effective filed to perform routine optimization to arrive at an energy that determines the best usable energy output for the battery based on its intended use.
Finally, Yoon also does not disclose the width of the battery pack. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, the only specification which details the width of the battery pack (i.e. [0041]) does not give a reason for or an effect of this dimension. Therefore, there is no evidence on the record as to how the batteries of the instant application would perform differently than that of the prior art as a direct result of this dimension. Therefore, a width of the battery pack being between 17 cm and 18 cm is an obvious design variation.
With respects to the preamble limiting the battery to a “riding lawn mower,” applicant is reminded that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In this instance, as the preamble merely limits the battery’s intended use of being used in a riding lawn mower, it is not considered a limitation.
Claim 18 attempts to limit the battery pack based on the capacity of the battery pack and a ratio of the capacity to the weight of the battery pack. It has already been established (see rejection of claim 5) that the weight of the battery pack is not a patentable feature. The capacity of a battery pack is a result-effective variable i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result such as electrical storage requirements to power a motor, turn on a light, etc. Applicant is therefore reminded that the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103."). The amount of electrical energy storage required is a result of market demand, and therefore, it would be an obvious design variation to try to adjust the capacity within the pack to meet the market demands.
With respect to claim 20, Yoon discloses a handle disposed on the housing (310) and gripped by a user (Fig. 1).
Yoon does not disclose a ratio of a length of the handle to a length of the battery pack in an extension direction of the handle is higher than or equal to 0.6. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, a handle would not operate differently in a battery pack based on a ratio of its length to a length of the pack in the extension direction of the handle. Therefore, the recited dimensions are not patentable.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. in view of Yu et al. Juzkow et al., and Lyons as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (U.S. 20110197389).
With respect to claims 8 and 19, modified Yoon discloses a battery pack (300) (Fig. 1), but discloses a battery pack which utilizes lithium secondary batteries ([0003]), and does not disclose the use of lithium iron phosphate cells.
Ota discloses a battery pack comprising lithium-ion cells ([0011]) but teaches the battery pack is not limited by cell type, and would still function using lithium iron phosphate cells ([0091]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness has been provided based on the rationale using a simple substitution of one known element (lithium-ion cells) for another (lithium iron phosphate cells) to obtain a predictable result (MPEP 2143.I.B.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to substitute the lithium cells disclosed by modified Yoon for lithium iron phosphate cells as taught by Ota as a simple substitution to obtain a predictable result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12 of response, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respects to Yoon et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yoon in view of Yu et al., Juzkow et al., and Lyons.
It is noted by the examiner that the majority of applicant’s arguments and several claim limitations are drawn to result-effective variables such as energy, capacity, dimensions, voltage, etc. These types of limitations are rejectable, as it is either very commonly and inherently known, or explicitly taught in prior art, how these variables affect batteries in the art. Additionally, the recitation of dimensions without support in the specification as to how these dimension affect the battery does not impart patentability, as relative dimensions are obvious in the absence of persuasive evidence that changes the operation or leads to an unexpected result. Finally, the intended use of the battery in a lawn mower over a vehicle will also not be a patentable feature, as batteries behave and operate in the same manner as a vehicle vs. a lawn mower by providing it power. It is not new or novel to put a battery in a lawn mower. In the event that prosecution is advanced by the applicant, it is the examiner’s recommendation to focus on structural features within the pack that lead the increased operating variables such as capacity, energy, and voltage.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
