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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 06/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examination of the group II would not be an unreasonable burden to the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the listed group II includes significant different features and would require different consideration and use of prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a, 1) as being anticipated by Mineo (U. S. Patent 7,458,837).
Regarding claim 1, Mineo, see figures 1-7, discloses a resilient electrical disconnect system, (see figure 7) comprising: a first component member 240 including a first electrical connector 242; and a second component member 340 including a second electrical connector 341, wherein the first component member 240 includes a rigid base 230 and a resilient connector support 250 coupled to the rigid base 230, the first electrical connector 242 being mounted to the resilient connector support 250 and configured to detachably form an electrical connection with the second electrical connector 341.
Regarding claim 2, Mineo, see figures 1-7, discloses the first electrical connector 242 and the second electrical connector 341 define a connection axis, wherein the resilient connector support 250 is selectively shiftable relative to the connection axis when forming an electrical connection.
Regarding claim 3, Mineo, see figures 1-7, discloses the first electrical connector 242 is shiftable along an axis that is substantially parallel with the connection axis when forming the electrical connection.
Regarding claim 4, Mineo, see figures 1-7, discloses the first electrical connector 242 is shiftable along an axis that is angled relative to the connection axis when forming the electrical connection.
Regarding claim 5, Mineo, see figures 1-7, discloses the first electrical connector 242 is shiftable along a first axis and along a second axis when forming the electrical connection. See columns 2, 6.
Regarding claim 6, Mineo, see figures 1-7, discloses one of the first axis and the second axis is substantially parallel with the connection axis. See columns 2, 6.
Regarding claim 7, Mineo, see figures 1-7, discloses the resilient connector support 250 is formed from a non-electrically conductive flexible material. See columns 2 and 6.
Regarding claim 8, Mineo, see figures 1-7, discloses the non-electrically conductive flexible material is a rubber material. See column 7.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mineo in view of Perry (U. S. Patent 7,402,062).
Regarding claim 9, Mineo discloses the claimed invention except for the first member component is a battery disconnect unit and the second member component is a rechargeable energy storage system (RESS battery assembly. Perry discloses a battery (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mineo to provide such features as taught by Perry so as to provide power for the system.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the references discloses the first electrical connector includes a first connector member arranged in a first plane, a second connector member arranged in a second plane distinct from the first plane, and a third connector member arranged in a third plane, and wherein the second electrical connector includes a first connector element arranged in the first plane, a second connector element arranged in the second plane, and a third connector element arranged in the third plane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG K DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-2090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Riyami A Abdullah can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/PHUONG K DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights