DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 28-36 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 28 now recites “a battery assembly comprising: a housing a battery” without a semicolon or comma. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 28-54 are 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. Independent claim 28 recites “a grasping point extending from the battery and through the housing”. Independent claim 37 recites “a grasping point extending from a battery and through a housing”. There is no explicit or implied support for this limitation. Rather, the disclosure states that the battery is located in a battery housing, and the grasping point merely extends from an outer wall of the battery. The disclosure does not provide support for the grasping point extending through the housing.
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(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corser et al. (US 2024/0425279) in view of Mulvenna et al. (US 2007/0087241). Corser discloses a system for replacing a battery in a vehicle, the system comprising: a battery assembly comprising a housing (204), a battery (202) selectively disposed within the housing, and a grasping point (top of 206) extending from the battery and through the housing; and a robotic device comprising an end effector (226) configured to couple to the grasping point to facilitate connection of the robotic device and the battery. Corser additionally discloses a charging repository (340) containing a plurality of charging bays (344), each of the charging bays configured to receive the battery and charge the battery (see at least para. 0161). Corser discloses a controller configured to: determine when the battery is received in any of the charging bays (see at least paras. 0166 and 0168); and cause electrical power to be provided to one of the charging bays when the battery is received within the one of the charging bays (see at least paras. 0166 and 0168). Corser discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose a counterweight disposed within the housing laterally adjacent to the battery. However, Mulvenna discloses a similar system which includes an electricity generating assembly comprising a housing (6), an electricity generating device (20), and a counterweight (30) disposed within the housing laterally adjacent to the battery for the purpose of retrofitting an electricity generating assembly having a non OEM electricity generating assembly into a vehicle designed for a different battery. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Corser by having a counterweight disposed within the housing laterally adjacent to the battery, as disclosed by Mulvenna, for the purpose of retrofitting an electricity generating assembly having a non OEM electricity generating assembly into a vehicle designed for a different battery.
Claim(s) 33 and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corser et al. (US 2024/0425279) in view of Mulvenna et al. (US 2007/0087241), and further in view of Bakogiannis (WO 2022/064230 A1). The combination of Corser and Mulvenna discloses a system for replacing a battery in a vehicle, the system comprising: a battery assembly comprising a housing, a battery selectively disposed within the housing, a counterweight disposed with the housing laterally adjacent to the battery, and a grasping point extending from the battery and through the housing; and a robotic device comprising an end effector configured to couple to the grasping point to facilitate connection of the robotic device and the battery. Corser additionally discloses that the robotic device comprises a detector mounted on the end effector (see at least para. 0138). The combination of Corser and Mulvenna discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that the battery comprises a readable indicia comprising a QR code; the detector configured to facilitate detection of the readable indicia when the robotic device is not connected to the battery; and it does not disclose that the housing comprises a second readable indicia; wherein the detector is further configured to facilitate detection of the second readable indicia when the robotic device is not connected to the battery; and wherein a controller is configured to: receive a first signal from the detector, the first signal associated with the readable indicia and a characteristic of the battery, and receive a second signal from the detector, the second signal associated with the second readable indicia and a position of the housing. However, Bakogiannis discloses a similar system which includes a battery comprising a readable indicia comprising a QR code (see at least paras. 0060 and 0066); a detector configured to facilitate detection of the readable indicia when a robotic device is not connected to the battery; and a housing comprising a second readable indicia; wherein the detector is further configured to facilitate detection of the second readable indicia (see at least para. 0060) when the robotic device is not connected to the battery; and a controller configured to: receive a first signal from the detector, the first signal associated with the readable indicia and a characteristic of the battery, and receive a second signal from the detector, the second signal associated with the second readable indicia and a position of the housing (see at least paras. 0060 and 0066) for the purpose of ensuring an appropriate battery is exchanged for a specific battery of a particular vehicle. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Corser by having the battery comprise a readable indicia comprising a QR code; the detector configured to facilitate detection of the readable indicia when the robotic device is not connected to the battery; and have the housing comprise a second readable indicia; wherein the detector is further configured to facilitate detection of the second readable indicia when the robotic device is not connected to the battery; and wherein a controller is configured to: receive a first signal from the detector, the first signal associated with the readable indicia and a characteristic of the battery, and receive a second signal from the detector, the second signal associated with the second readable indicia and a position of the housing as disclosed by Bakogiannis, for the purpose of ensuring an appropriate battery is exchanged for a specific battery of a particular vehicle.
Claim(s) 37-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corser et al. (US 2024/0425279) in view of Confer et al. (US 2020/0321569). Corser discloses a method removing a battery from a vehicle, the method comprising: causing, by a controller (see at least para. 0168) of a robotic device (220), a grasping point (top of 206) extending from a battery and through a housing (150) to be coupled to an end effector (226) so as to connect the battery to the robotic device, the battery being selectively disposed within the housing, the housing being coupled to a vehicle, and after the battery is connected to the end effector, causing, by the controller, the battery to be removed from the housing. Corser further discloses that causing the battery to be moved comprises removing the battery from the housing and wherein the housing is coupled to a vehicle (100). Causing the battery to be moved comprises inserting the battery into a charging bay (344) of a charging repository (340). After causing the battery to be moved, determining, by the controller, that the battery is received in the charging bay (see at least paras. 0166 and 0168); and after determining that the battery is received in the charging bay, causing, by the controller, electrical power to be provided to the charging bay (see at least paras. 0166 and 0168). After causing the battery to be moved, causing, by the controller, the grasping point to be decoupled from the end effector so as to disconnect the battery from the robotic device (see at least paras. 0122, 0164, and 0168). After causing the grasping point to be decoupled from the end effector, causing, by the controller, a second grasping point of a second battery to be coupled to the end effector so as to connect the second battery to the robotic device, the second grasping point extending from a portion of a second housing of the second battery; and after the battery is connected to the end effector, causing, by the controller, the second battery to be moved (see at least paras. 0122, 0164, and 0168). Corser discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that the housing contains a counterweight disposed laterally adjacent to the battery when the battery is disposed within the housing, and it does not disclose that the counterweight remains contained within the housing after the battery is removed. However, Confer discloses a similar method which includes a housing (60) containing a counterweight (108) disposed laterally adjacent to the battery when the battery is disposed within the housing, it discloses that the counterweight remains contained within the housing after the battery is removed (see at least para. 0009) for the purpose of improving the stability of a vehicle.
Claim(s) 43-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corser et al. (US 2024/0425279) in view of Confer et al. (US 2020/0321569) and further in view of Bakogiannis (WO 2022/064230 A1). The combination of Corser and Confer discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that before causing the grasping point to be coupled to the end effector, causing, by the controller, a detector mounted on the end effector to detect a readable indicia of the battery and determining, by the controller, based on the readable indicia, at least one: a position of the battery or a characteristic of the battery. However, Bakogiannis discloses a similar method which includes before causing a grasping point to be coupled to an end effector, causing, by a controller, a detector mounted on the end effector to detect a readable indicia of a battery and determining, by the controller, based on the readable indicia, at least one: a position of the battery or a characteristic of the battery (see at least paras. 0060 and 0066) for the purpose of ensuring an appropriate battery is exchanged for a specific battery of a particular vehicle. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Corser by having before causing the grasping point to be coupled to the end effector, causing, by the controller, a detector mounted on the end effector to detect a readable indicia of the battery and determining, by the controller, based on the readable indicia, at least one: a position of the battery or a characteristic of the battery, as disclosed by Bakogiannis, for the purpose of ensuring an appropriate battery is exchanged for a specific battery of a particular vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights