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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para [0092] of the Instant Specification reads:
“When the selector switch 172 is moved the left position as indicated by the arrow appearing in FIG. 4, the battery pack center base module 132 electrically couples a battery pack 176 (see FIG. 6) attached to the right side of the battery pack center base module 132“
This appears to have been intended to read:
“When the selector switch 172 is moved the left position as indicated by the arrow appearing in FIG. 4, the battery pack center base module 132 electrically couples a battery pack 176 (see FIG. 6) attached to the left side of the battery pack center base module 132“
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 5-6, the phrase “when the first adapter is attached to center base module” should be changed to “when the first adapter is attached to the center base module.”
Similarly, the phrase “when the second adapter is attached to center base module” in lien 9 should be changed to “when the second adapter is attached to the center base module.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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 1, the language “wherein the main body is configured to interchangeably attach to the battery module interface in place of the battery module, the main body configured to emulate physical and electrical characteristics of the battery module” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what specific limitations are imposed by the phrase “configured to emulate physical and electrical characteristics of the battery module.”
For examination purposes, it is understood that any structure which possesses mass, takes up physical space, and has electrically conducting and/or insulating elements can reasonably be interpreted as emulating the physical and electrical characteristics of a battery module, given a reasonably broad interpretation of the claim language.
Claims 2-6 are similarly rejected as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the battery module" in line 11 and in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While lines 3-4 reference “a battery module interface configured to detachably couple to a battery module,” this appears to be functional language describing the intended use of the claimed adapter assembly, and does not invoke a particular battery module as part of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-6 are similarly rejected as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the battery module interface" in line 7 and in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While line 3 references “a battery module interface configured to detachably couple to a battery module,” this appears to be functional language describing the intended use of the claimed adapter assembly, and does not invoke a particular battery module interface as part of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-6 are similarly rejected as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the battery module interface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While line 3 of claim 1 references “a battery module interface configured to detachably couple to a battery module,” this appears to be functional language describing the intended use of the claimed adapter assembly, and does not invoke a particular battery module interface as part of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the battery pack adapter" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While line 3 of the claim references “a battery pack adapter,” this appears to be functional language describing the intended use of the claimed adapter assembly, and does not invoke a particular battery pack adapter as part of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the battery module interface" in line 2 and line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While line 3 of claim 1 references “a battery module interface configured to detachably couple to a battery module,” this appears to be functional language describing the intended use of the claimed adapter assembly, and does not invoke a particular battery module interface as part of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the battery module interface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While line 3 of claim 1 references “a battery module interface configured to detachably couple to a battery module,” this appears to be functional language describing the intended use of the claimed adapter assembly, and does not invoke a particular battery module interface as part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the language “wherein the main body is configured to interchangeably attach to the battery module interface in place of the battery module, the main body configured to emulate physical and electrical characteristics of the battery module” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what specific limitations are imposed by the phrase “configured to emulate physical and electrical characteristics of the battery module.”
For examination purposes, it is understood that any structure which possesses mass, takes up physical space, and has electrically conducting and/or insulating elements can reasonably be interpreted as emulating the physical and electrical characteristics of a battery module, given a reasonably broad interpretation of the claim language.
Claims 8-17 are similarly rejected as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 7.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the battery module" in line 13 and in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While lines 2-3 reference “a battery module interface unit having at least one battery module interface configured to detachably couple to a battery module,” this appears to be functional language describing the intended use of the claimed adapter assembly, and does not invoke a particular battery module as part of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-17 are similarly rejected as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 7.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the helmet mount assembly” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While line 1 of claims 7 references “a battery pack system for a helmet mount assembly,” this appears to be functional language describing the intended use of the claimed adapter assembly, and does not invoke a particular helmet mount assembly as part of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-17 are similarly rejected as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soar (US 2023/0336029) in view of Huang (CN 214313704, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 1, Soar discloses an adapter assembly (see e.g. cradle 3, Soar: [0099] and Fig. 2) that has sprung connectors 19 that may comprise pogo pins that are capable of providing and transmitting data or control signals from an external source (see e.g. Soar: [0110] and Figs. 6 and 8). The phrase “for providing power and transmitting one or both of data and control signals from an external source to an electronic device on a helmet mount assembly having a battery module interface configured to detachably couple to a battery module” is a statement of intended use that does not further patentably limit the structure of the claimed adapter assembly. Soar’s adapter assembly is capable of providing power and transmitting one or both of data and control signals from an external source to an electronic device on a helmet mount assembly having a battery module interface configured to detachably couple to a battery module via connector 8 and spring connectors 19 (see e.g. [0110], spring connectors 19 are pogo pins that are capable of providing both power and data transmission).
Further regarding claim 1, Soar discloses an adapter assembly comprising:
a main body (see e.g. cradle 3, Soar: [0099] and Fig. 2) having a pair of connectors comprising a plurality of power and data pins (see e.g. sprung connectors 19, which comprise pogo pins that read on power and data pins, Soar: [0110] and Figs. 6 and 8) that are configured to detachably couple to an aligned pair of lug receptacles on the battery module interface (see e.g. Soar: [0109] and Fig. 6, sprung connectors 19 detachably couple to flat terminals 9 of battery 27, where flat terminals 9 read on an aligned pair of lug receptacles on a battery module interface).
Soar does not disclose a pair of interface lugs, each lug having a magnetic fastener element and a plurality of power and data pins.
Huang, also working on the problem of electrical connectors for pogo pins, teaches a connector comprising an interface lug (see e.g. plug assembly 1, Huang: [0026] and Fig. 1), said lug having a magnetic fastener element (see e.g. annular slot 12, which has a magnetic structure that reads on a magnetic fastener element, Huang: [0026] and Fig. 2) and a plurality of power and data pins (see e.g. pin 13, Huang: [0026] and Fig. 2). Huang further teaches that the magnetic fastener element advantageously provides an attractive force that improves the working stability of the connector (see e.g. Huang: [0044]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adapter assembly of Soar by replacing Soar’s connectors with the interface lugs taught by Huang, with each lug having a magnetic fastener element and a plurality of power and data pins. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a substitution because Huang teaches that the magnetic fastener elements provides an attractive force that improves the working stability of the connector.
Further regarding claim 1, Soar in view of Huang teaches a cable extending from the main body (see e.g. connector 8, which extends from cradle 3, Soar: [0099] and [0101] and Fig. 2) the cable having an electrical power and data connector at the end (see e.g. Soar: [0101], connector 8 provides for the exchange of power and data, and therefore has an electrical power/data connector at the end) configured to be operatively coupled to the external source (i.e., connector 8 is capable of being operatively coupled to an external source).
Further regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the main body is configured to interchangeably attach to the battery module interface in place of the battery module” is a statement of intended use that does not further patentably limit the structure of the claimed adapter assembly. Soar in view of Huang’s adapter assembly is capable of interchangeably attaching to a battery module interface in place of the battery module via sprung connectors 19 (see e.g. Soar: [0110] and Figs. 6 and 8).
Further regarding claim 1, Soar in view of Huang’s adapter assembly comprises a man body (see e.g. cradle 3, Soar: Fig. 2) that can reasonably be said to be configured to emulate physical and electrical characteristics of a battery module insofar as the main body possesses mass, takes up physical space, and has electrically conducting and insulating elements.
As to claim 3, Soar in view of Huang teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the main body is configured to interchangeably attach to a battery module interface (see e.g. cradle 3, which reads on a main body and comprises sprung connectors 19 which connect to a battery as per Soar: [0110]. As such, cradle 3 is capable of being interchangeably attached to a battery module interface). The phrase “in place of the battery module which comprises a battery pack adapter and a battery pack” is functional language that does not limit the structure of the claimed adapter assembly.
Further regarding claim 3, Soar in view of Huang’s adapter assembly comprises a main body (see e.g. cradle 3, Soar: Fig. 2) that can reasonably be said to be configured to emulate physical and electrical characteristics of a battery pack adapter module insofar as the main body possesses mass, takes up physical space, and has electrically conducting and insulating elements.
As to claim 4, Soar in view of Huang teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the main body is configured to interchangeably attach to a battery module interface (see e.g. cradle 3, which reads on a main body and comprises sprung connectors 19 which connect to a battery as per Soar: [0110]. As such, cradle 3 is capable of being interchangeably attached to a battery module interface). The phrase “in place of the battery module which comprises a battery pack which is directly attachable to the battery module interface” is functional language that does not limit the structure of the claimed adapter assembly.
Further regarding claim 4, Soar in view of Huang’s adapter assembly comprises a main body (see e.g. cradle 3, Soar: Fig. 2) that can reasonably be said to be configured to emulate physical and electrical characteristics of a battery pack adapter module insofar as the main body possesses mass, takes up physical space, and has electrically conducting and insulating elements.
As to claim 5, Soar in view of Huang teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the main body is configured to interchangeably attach to a battery module interface (see e.g. cradle 3, which reads on a main body and comprises sprung connectors 19 which connect to a battery as per Soar: [0110]. As such, cradle 3 is capable of being interchangeably attached to a battery module interface). The phrase “which is disposed on a battery interface unit having a second battery module interface” is functional language that does not limit the structure of the claimed adapter assembly.
As to claim 6, Soar in view of Huang teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the electrical data and power connector (see e.g. connector 8, Soar: [0099] and Fig. 2) is configured to be operatively coupled to one or both of a remote power supply and a computer based information handling system (i.e., connector 8 connects to a soldier’s power and data system as per Soar: [0099], and therefore said connector is configured to be operatively coupled to a remote power supply).
As to claim 7, Soar discloses a battery pack system for a helmet mount assembly, comprising:
a battery module interface unit (see e.g. Soar: Fig. 8 and Illustration 1 below) having at least one battery module interface (see e.g. cradle connector board 31, which connects to battery 27 and thereby reads on a battery module interface, Soar: [0109] and Fig. 6) configured to detachably couple to a battery module (see e.g. the battery module interface unit highlighted in Illustration 1 below. This battery module interface unit couples with a battery via sprung connectors 19 as per Soar: [0109], and is thereby configured to detachably couple to a battery module);
PNG
media_image1.png
644
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1, reproduction with modification of Fig. 8 of Soar.
an adapter assembly (see e.g. cradle 3, Soar: [0099] and Fig. 2) that has sprung connectors 19 that may comprise pogo pins that are capable of providing and transmitting data or control signals from an external source (see e.g. Soar: [0110] and Figs. 6 and 8). The phrase “for providing power and transmitting one or both of data and control signals from an external source to an electronic device on a helmet mount assembly having a battery module interface configured to detachably couple to a battery module” is a statement of intended use that does not further patentably limit the structure of the claimed adapter assembly. Soar’s adapter assembly is capable of providing power and transmitting one or both of data and control signals from an external source to an electronic device on a helmet mount assembly having a battery module interface configured to detachably couple to a battery module via connector 8 and spring connectors 19 (see e.g. [0110], spring connectors 19 are pogo pins that are capable of providing both power and data transmission).
Further regarding claim 7, Soar discloses an adapter assembly comprising:
a main body (see e.g. cradle 3, Soar: [0099] and Fig. 2) having a pair of connectors comprising a plurality of power and data pins (see e.g. sprung connectors 19, which comprise pogo pins that read on power and data pins, Soar: [0110] and Figs. 6 and 8) that are configured to detachably couple to an aligned pair of lug receptacles on the battery module interface (see e.g. Soar: [0109] and Fig. 6, sprung connectors 19 detachably couple to flat terminals 9 of battery 27, where flat terminals 9 read on an aligned pair of lug receptacles on a battery module interface).
Soar does not disclose a pair of interface lugs, each lug having a magnetic fastener element and a plurality of power and data pins.
Huang, also working on the problem of electrical connectors for pogo pins, teaches a connector comprising an interface lug (see e.g. plug assembly 1, Huang: [0026] and Fig. 1), said lug having a magnetic fastener element (see e.g. annular slot 12, which has a magnetic structure that reads on a magnetic fastener element, Huang: [0026] and Fig. 2) and a plurality of power and data pins (see e.g. pin 13, Huang: [0026] and Fig. 2). Huang further teaches that the magnetic fastener element advantageously provides an attractive force that improves the working stability of the connector (see e.g. Huang: [0044]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adapter assembly of Soar by replacing Soar’s connectors with the interface lugs taught by Huang, with each lug having a magnetic fastener element and a plurality of power and data pins. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a substitution because Huang teaches that the magnetic fastener elements provides an attractive force that improves the working stability of the connector.
Further regarding claim 7, Soar in view of Huang teaches a cable extending from the main body (see e.g. connector 8, which extends from cradle 3, Soar: [0099] and [0101] and Fig. 2) the cable having an electrical power and data connector at the end (see e.g. Soar: [0101], connector 8 provides for the exchange of power and data, and therefore has an electrical power/data connector at the end) configured to be operatively coupled to the external source (i.e., connector 8 is capable of being operatively coupled to an external source).
Further regarding claim 7, the phrase “wherein the main body is configured to interchangeably attach to the battery module interface in place of the battery module” is a statement of intended use that does not further patentably limit the structure of the claimed adapter assembly. Soar in view of Huang’s adapter assembly is capable of interchangeably attaching to a battery module interface in place of the battery module via sprung connectors 19 (see e.g. Soar: [0110] and Figs. 6 and 8).
Further regarding claim 7, Soar in view of Huang’s adapter assembly comprises a man body (see e.g. cradle 3, Soar: Fig. 2) that can reasonably be said to be configured to emulate physical and electrical characteristics of a battery module insofar as the main body possesses mass, takes up physical space, and has electrically conducting and insulating elements.
As to claim 9, Soar in view of Huang teaches the adapter assembly of claim 7, wherein the main body is configured to interchangeably attach to a battery module interface (see e.g. cradle 3, which reads on a main body and comprises sprung connectors 19 which connect to a battery as per Soar: [0110]. As such, cradle 3 is capable of being interchangeably attached to a battery module interface). The phrase “in place of the battery module which comprises a battery pack adapter and a battery pack” is functional language that does not limit the structure of the claimed adapter assembly.
Further regarding claim 9, Soar in view of Huang’s adapter assembly comprises a main body (see e.g. cradle 3, Soar: Fig. 2) that can reasonably be said to be configured to emulate physical and electrical characteristics of a battery pack adapter module insofar as the main body possesses mass, takes up physical space, and has electrically conducting and insulating elements.
As to claim 10, Soar in view of Huang teaches the adapter assembly of claim 7, wherein the main body is configured to interchangeably attach to a battery module interface (see e.g. cradle 3, which reads on a main body and comprises sprung connectors 19 which connect to a battery as per Soar: [0110]. As such, cradle 3 is capable of being interchangeably attached to a battery module interface). The phrase “in place of the battery module which comprises a battery pack which is directly attachable to the battery module interface” is functional language that does not limit the structure of the claimed adapter assembly.
Further regarding claim 10, Soar in view of Huang’s adapter assembly comprises a main body (see e.g. cradle 3, Soar: Fig. 2) that can reasonably be said to be configured to emulate physical and electrical characteristics of a battery pack adapter module insofar as the main body possesses mass, takes up physical space, and has electrically conducting and insulating elements.
As to claim 11, Soar in view of Huang teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the electrical data and power connector (see e.g. connector 8, Soar: [0099] and Fig. 2) is configured to be operatively coupled to one or both of a remote power supply and a computer based information handling system (i.e., connector 8 connects to a soldier’s power and data system as per Soar: [0099], and therefore said connector is configured to be operatively coupled to a remote power supply).
As to claim 12, Soar in view of Huang teaches the adapter assembly of claim 7, wherein the battery interface unit includes a battery module interface (see e.g. cradle connector board 31, which connects to battery 27 and thereby reads on a battery module interface, Soar: [0109] and Fig. 6). Soar in view of Huang’s battery interface unit does not include a second battery module interface.
However, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts in a claimed invention has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP §2144.04, “VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS”). In the instant case, the addition of a second battery module interface to the battery interface unit of Soar in view of Huang would fail to alter the operation of the adapter assembly in a patentably distinct manner and would fail to produce any a new and unexpected results. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would therefore have found it obvious to modify Soar in view of Huang by duplicating the battery module interface to provide a second battery module interface. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to increase the battery capacity supplied to the adapter assembly.
As to claim 13, Soar in view of Huang teaches the battery pack system of claim 12, wherein the battery interface unit is a center base module (see e.g. Soar: Fig. 8 and Illustration 1 above. Read in light of the Instant Specification and with a reasonably broad definition of the term “center base module,” the battery interface unit of Sor can reasonably be considered to be a center base module). Soar in view of Huang’s battery interface unit is configured to facilitate communication between devices on different branches of the helmet mount assembly (see e.g. Soar: [0109]-[0110] and Illustration 1 above, the battery interface unit of Soar comprises sprung connectors 19 that connect to terminals 9 on battery 27 and therefore can reasonably be considered to be configured to facilitate communication between devices on different branches of a helmet mount assembly).
As to claim 14, Soar in view of Huang teaches the battery pack system of claim 13, further comprising a first battery pack for removable attachment to the center base module (see e.g. battery 27, which reads on a first battery pack and is removably attached to the center base module as shown in Soar: Fig. 6 and Illustration 1 above).
Soar in view of Huang does not teach second battery packs for removable attachment to the center base module.
However, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts in a claimed invention has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP §2144.04, “VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS”). In the instant case, the addition of second battery packs for removable attachment to the center base module to the battery pack system of Soar in view of Huang would fail to alter the operation of the battery pack system in a patentably distinct manner and would fail to produce any a new and unexpected results. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would therefore have found it obvious to modify Soar in view of Huang by duplicating the first battery back for removable attachment to the center base module of Soar to provide second battery packs for removable attachment to the center base module. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to increase the battery capacity supplied to the battery pack system.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soar (US 2023/0336029) in view of Huang (CN 214313704, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gagne-Keats (US 2023/0185752).
As to claim 2, Soar in view of Huang teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, including an electrical data and power connector that is intended to connect to a soldier's power and data system (see e.g. connector 8, Soar: [0099] and Fig. 2). However, Soar in view of Huang does not explicitly teach that this electrical data and power connector is a Universal Serial Bus connector.
Gagne-Keats, also working on the problem of electrical/data connectors, teaches that a Universal Serial Bus (USB) connector is an industry standard for establishing power supply and communications between computers and peripherals (see e.g. Gagne-Keats: [0001]-[0002]). Gagne-Keats teaches that a USB’s standardized interface improves the ease of use when establishing a connection between devices (see e.g. Gagne-Keats: [0002]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adapter assembly taught by Soar in view of Huang by providing the power connector with a USB connector. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Gagne-Keats teaches that a USB interface is a standardized connector for power supply and data that allows for an easy connection between devices.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soar (US 2023/0336029) in view of Huang (CN 214313704, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gagne-Keats (US 2023/0185752).
As to claim 8, Soar in view of Huang teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, including an electrical data and power connector that is intended to connect to a soldier's power and data system (see e.g. connector 8, Soar: [0099] and Fig. 2). However, Soar in view of Huang does not explicitly teach that this electrical data and power connector is a Universal Serial Bus connector.
Gagne-Keats, also working on the problem of electrical/data connectors, teaches that a Universal Serial Bus (USB) connector is an industry standard for establishing power supply and communications between computers and peripherals (see e.g. Gagne-Keats: [0001]-[0002]). Gagne-Keats teaches that a USB’s standardized interface improves the ease of use when establishing a connection between devices (see e.g. Gagne-Keats: [0002]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adapter assembly taught by Soar in view of Huang by providing the power connector with a USB connector. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Gagne-Keats teaches that a USB interface is a standardized connector for power supply and data that allows for an easy connection between devices.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soar (US 2023/0336029) in view of Huang (CN 214313704, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Tadjdeh (National Defense, Oct. 2021, vol. 106, No. 815, pp. 31-32).
As to claim 15, Soar in view of Huang as applied above teaches the battery pack system of claim 14, including first and second battery packs (see e.g. battery 27, Soar: [0104] and Fig. 6). Soar’s first and second battery packs are generic battery packs, and Soar in view of Huang does not explicitly teach that they are Small Tactical Universal Battery (STUB) battery packs.
Tadjdeh teaches the use of STUB battery packs as a means of achieving simplicity and interoperability, because STUB battery packs have the capability to adjust their output voltage to meet a particular device need, allowing for interoperability (see e.g. Tadjdeh: pg. 32, col. 1, paras 2-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack system of Soar in view of Huang by selecting STUB battery packs for use as the fist and second battery packs. Said artisan would have been motivated to use STUB battery packs because Tadjdeh teaches that STUB battery packs allow for interoperability between devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 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.
Regarding claims 16-17, the closest prior art of record is Soar (US 2023/0336029) in view of Huang (CN 214313704, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 13 above.
However, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed feature of “a first adapter detachably attached to a first side of the center base module and having a first interface surface configured for removable attachment to the center base module and a second interface surface configured for removable attachment to a first battery pack; the first interface surface of the first adapter having first and second lugs configured for removable attachment to aligned and facing first and second sockets on the center base module; a second adapter detachably attached to a second side of the center base module and having a first interface surface configured for removable attachment to the center base module and second interface surface configured for removable attachment to a second battery pack; and the first interface surface of the second adapter having third and fourth lugs configured for removable attachment to aligned and facing third and fourth sockets on the center base module” as required by claim 16.
Similarly, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the feature of “a first lock bar disposed on the center base module and movable between a locking position and an unlocking position, the first lock bar including a first latching plate engaging complementary grooves in the first and second lugs when the first adapter is attached to center base module; and a second lock bar disposed on the center base module movable between a locking position and an unlocking position, the second lock bar including a second latching plate engaging complementary grooves in the third and fourth lugs when the second adapter is attached to center base module.” of claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights