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 .
Drawings
The drawings and replacement drawings were received on 18 January, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims and specification filed 18 January 2024 have been entered.
Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the handle recessing inside or protruding from the battery pack cover in the limitation “wherein in the unlock position both ends of the handle are recessed inside the battery pack cover, and wherein in the lock position both ends of the handle protrude outward from the battery pack cover” is understood by the examiner as the ends of the handles extending past the circumferential boundaries of the battery pack cover when viewed from above, described in paragraphs [43] and [44] of the substitute specification.
Additionally, the “plurality of grooves” in the seat of the battery pack assembly, which receive the ends of the handle, are understood by the examiner to be cavities or recesses having space to receive the handles, which are inserted into the grooves. As described in paragraph [9] of the substitute specification, the grooves are formed on the top inner side of the inner side surface so that both ends of the handle are inserted at the lock position and fixed.
In claim 4, the elastic region of the elastic member is interpreted as the region or portion of the elastic member that compresses while the battery cover and handle is in the lock position.
In claim 6, “continuously extending in a circumferential direction” is understood by the examiner as space where the handle can rotate through, formed about the circumference without ceasing, based on the definition of continuous.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (JP 6872030 B2, provided in an IDS received on 28 February, 2025) in view of O'Hora (US 10,147,984 B2), and further in view of Hong et al. (CN 213716982 U, provided in an IDS received on 15 May, 2025). The uploaded machine translated descriptions of the foreign patent documents are used for the rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoyama teaches a battery pack assembly comprising:
a battery pack having a cover (battery B with front surface 60, see figure 4 and [0023]; the cover includes front surface 60);
a handle rotatably installed on the battery pack cover and configured to rotate between an unlock position and a lock position (paragraph [0010] describes the rotatability of grip portion 32, representing the handle, which switches between a locked an unlocked state), wherein in the unlock position both ends of the handle are recessed inside the battery pack cover (figure 3 shows the unlocked state, and the grip portion 32 is recessed inside the battery pack cover because it does not extend past the edge of the cover or front surface 60; see the claim interpretation section above), and wherein in the lock position both ends of the handle protrude outward from the battery pack cover (figure 6 shows the locked state, and grip 32, which is the handle, extends past the outer edge of the cover; see the claim interpretation section above);
a seat having an inner space for accommodating the battery pack (figures 3 and 5 depict the inner case 50 having an inner space which accommodates the battery pack, and the inner case 50 is the seat; [0014] provides a description of the corresponding structure).
Yokoyama does not teach that the seat has a plurality of grooves configured to receive both ends of the handle, respectively, in the lock position, nor does he teach an elastic member provided in the inner space of the seat and arranged to be compressed in a state when the battery pack is inserted into the inner space.
However, O’Hora teaches a seat having a plurality of grooves configured to receive both ends of the handle in a locked position (see figures 16 and 18 and [0108]-[0110], the left image of figure 18 shows latches 1602-1 extending from the interior section of the handle 116 upon rotation into the bay opening 1506), showing a known configuration for locking and unlocking a battery; that is to say, the latches are ends of the handle that protrude in the locked position. O’Hora’s seat would necessarily need to have a plurality of grooves to receive the latches when the handle is rotated to the locking position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the seat of Yokoyama to have a plurality of grooves for receiving the ends of the handle in the locked position, as taught by O’Hora as an effective locking mechanism for a battery pack, rather than having protrusions on the seat which are received by the ends of the handle in Yokoyama.
As to the elastic member, Hong teaches a battery pack assembly comprising an elastic member provided in the inner space of the seat ([009] teaches a spring welded to the inner bottom plate of the box body, and paragraph [0030] and figures 1 and 4 teach a concave frame 2 on the springs, interpreted as elastic members, with a rubber pad 22 on the limiting groove which accommodates the battery pack) and arranged to be compressed in a state when the battery pack is inserted into the inner space (looking at figure 1, the first springs 5, or elastic members, would necessarily be compressed in a state when the battery pack is inserted as either the gravitational force or the lid pressing the battery pack down would cause the springs to compress).
Hong’s motivation for including the elastic member, spring 5, in the inner space of the seat is twofold. First, to make the battery packs easy to disassemble, or in other words, the batteries push and cause the cover to automatically pop up due to the restoring force of the springs during decompression, facilitating the removal of the battery (paragraph [0015]). Second, to assist and fix the battery packs during operation, providing an excellent shock absorption effect and strengthening protection of the battery pack (paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified the battery pack assembly of Yokoyama with O’Hora’s alternative locking grooves to have further included an elastic member provided in the inner space of the seat to facilitate removal of the battery and to provide excellent shock absorption, as taught by Hong.
Regarding Claim 2, Yokoyama modified by O’Hora and Hong teaches the battery pack assembly according to claim 1, wherein
in a state in which the handle is in the unlock position and is pressed down, the handle is lowered while the elastic member is compressed by a lowering of the battery pack, and
in a state in which the handle is rotated to the lock position, in which the handle is lowered to a groove position of the seat, the battery pack is fixed to the seat while both ends of the handle are received by the plurality of grooves.
PNG
media_image1.png
599
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
493
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
254
499
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 18 of O’Hora (left), Figure 4 of Yokoyama (middle), and Figure 1 of Hong (right)
The combination of Yokoyama with O’Hora and Hong would necessitate that, in a state when the handle is in the unlock position and pressed down, the battery pack and its handle is lowered into the seat (inner case 50 of Yokoyama, [0014]), resisted by and compressing the elastic member (first springs 5, Hong figure 1), until the handles reach the depth of the grooves to enable locking with the handles inserting into grooves (bay opening 1506, O’Hora [0110]) while maintaining spring tension. The addition of the elastic member would require spring compression and fixation of the battery to the seat from the force of the spring to transition from unlocked to locked position, providing the benefits taught by Hong of facile battery removal and shock absorption. The side-by-side figures presented above attempt to represent the combination of products that would necessitate the structure claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yokoyama teaches the battery pack of claim 2, wherein
in a state in which the handle is rotated to the unlock position, the battery pack rises by a restoring force of the elastic member, so as to be detachable from the seat while both ends of the handle move out of the plurality of grooves.
The combination of the battery pack and seat of Yokoyama with the grooves for locking of O’Hora as well as the elastic member of Hong would necessarily cause the battery pack to rise from the seat as the springs decompress upon unlocking the handle from the grooves, facilitating removal of the battery pack from the seat (paragraph [0015] Hong).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Yokoyama teaches the battery pack assembly according to claim 1, wherein a groove position of the seat, an elastic modulus of the elastic member, and a deformation amount of the elastic member are configured so that the elastic member may be compressed and expanded only within an elastic region of the elastic member. By combining the elastic member of Hong with the seat of Yokoyama, it would have been an obvious and necessary modification to ensure functionality to position the grooves and configure the elastic modulus of the elastic member and the deformation amount of the elastic member so that the elastic member may be compressed and expanded only within an elastic region of the elastic member. Otherwise, the elastic member would not provide sufficient force to facilitate battery removal and provide sufficient fixation and shock absorption, or the elastic member would provide excess force, impeding the installation of the battery pack into the inner space of the seat.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Yokoyama teaches the battery pack assembly according to claim 1, further comprising a cap installed at a rotation center of the handle (center button on the handle 116, [0108] and figures 16 to 18) and configured to prevent the rotation of the handle (paragraph [0108] describes the center button springing outwards, locking the handle in place until the button is depressed); and a second elastic member installed between the handle and the cap (see figure 18 left image depicts the spring, a second elastic member, between the handle and the cap as the handle extends below the cap, and the language in paragraph [0108] “spring outwards” implies an elastic member is employed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Yokoyama’s handle to include a cap at the rotation center for preventing rotation of the handle when pressed as a known locking mechanism, as taught by O’Hora.
Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama in view of O'Hora and Hong as applied to claims 1-4 and 6 above, and further in view of Takao et al. (JP 2017220513 A, provided in an IDS received on 28 February, 2025, the uploaded machine translation of the description is used for rejection).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Yokoyama teaches the battery pack assembly according to claim 1.
Modified Yokoyama does not teach the plurality of locking jaws on the battery pack cover.
However, Takao teaches a battery pack assembly comprising a handle rotatably installed on a cover of the battery pack, wherein ends of the handles are received by a plurality of grooves in a locked position, and wherein a plurality of locking jaws is placed on the battery pack cover to limit the rotation range of the handle at each of the unlock position and the lock position (stopper portions 27b are interpreted as locking jaws, and they engage with the handle at 30c to prevent rotation outside of a range of locking and unlocking, see paragraphs [0060] and [0063] of Takao, as well as figures 5 and 6). Thus, Takao shows a known embodiment for limiting the rotation range of the handle at each of the unlock position and lock position using locking jaws. Combining the locking jaws of Takao with modified Yokoyama would have been easily within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery pack cover of modified Yokoyama with the locking jaws of Takao for restricting the rotation range of the handle at each of the unlock position and lock position, maintaining the handle positions within or outside of the grooves, as taught by Takao.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Yokoyama teaches the battery pack assembly according to claim 1.
Modified Yokoyama does not teach the grooves of the seat continuously extending in a circumferential direction of the seat.
However, Takao teaches a plurality of grooves (locking holes 16, [0078] and figure 2) in the seat continuously extending in a circumferential direction of the seat (the grooves continuously extend in a circumferential direction of the seat because there is nothing obstructing the grooves to make it discontinuous in a circumferential direction, see locking holes 16 in figure 4, and figure 3), and wherein the plurality of grooves is disposed in at least a rotation range of the handle that extends along a rotation direction of the handle (figures 3 and 4, the plurality of grooves are disposed in the rotation range of the handle, extending along a rotation direction). This structure allows for the handle to be received in a rotational manner by the grooves as shown by Takao.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the grooves of the battery seat to continuously extend in a circumferential direction of the seat and in a rotation range of the handle to enable another known mechanism for locking as taught by Takao.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of recordO’Hora (US 10,147,984 B2), does not fairly teach nor suggest in particular the limitation regarding the cap having a protruding member extending outward from a lower portion of the leg members, wherein the protruding member extends transverse to the longitudinal direction.
Additionally, the other relevant prior art references, such as Yokoyama (JP 6872030 B2) and Takao (JP 2017220513 A), fail to teach a cap installed at a rotation center of the handle configured to prevent rotation of the handle.
There does not appear to be any teaching, motivation, or suggestion in these prior art references that would present a prima facie case of obviousness for including a cap having a protruding member extending outward from a lower portion of the leg members to inhibit rotation, and wherein the protruding member extends transverse to the longitudinal direction of the cover.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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 (571)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.
/ANDREW KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights