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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 20 May 2024 and 5 September 2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference numerals throughout the figures can be challenging to read and decipher. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-16 and 80-83 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 upper battery post aperture is configured to receive an extent of the battery post” on line 6 of the claim is unclear. The limitation, as written, duplicates the limitation on line 4; however, it is believed the limitation should be “the lower battery post aperture is configured to receive an extent of the battery post.” Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the limitation is understood as such.
Regarding claim 3, “sufficient compressive force,” “positive angle,” “negative angle,” and “substantially vertical wall” are terms of degree and relative orientation. Whilst they may be definite in view of the drawings, they could require clearer objective boundaries such as angle ranges or defining the reference surfaces more precisely.
The Examiner notes that “sufficient compressive forces” as well as “a less than nominal force” is found throughout the claims and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16, there are two reasons the claim is unclear. First, the phrase “applicable USCAR specifications” is indefinite because the claim does not identify which USCAR specification, revision, test procedure, performance criterion, or environmental condition is required. The specification lists multiple USCAR specifications, including USCAR-2, USCAR-12, USCAR-21, USCAR-25, USCAR-37, and USCAR-38, but the claim does not specify which one or which requirement within those standards defines the claim scope. Further, the limitation “…pull-off force that is greater than 3,000 Newtons” is unclear. This limitation is indefinite because the claim does not recite the test method, battery post geometry, battery post standard, clamp installation torque, direction of applied pull-off load, environmental condition, or measurement protocol used to determine whether the pull-off force exceeds 3,000 Newtons. Without these objective testing conditions, the claimed pull-off force does not provide reasonably certain boundaries. Since no clear understanding can be determined of the meets and bounds of the limitations, this claim precludes a reasonable search. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the claim is understood to be met if the prior art is intended for a vehicle as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need to meet any and all regulatory specifications (USCAR, in this case) to be legal.
The remaining claims that are not specifically mentioned are included at least due to their dependency on claim 1, but it is noted it may also contain similar relative terms as the claims mentioned above.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Halbach et al. (US 5,738,552; hereinafter ‘Halbach’).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Halbach discloses battery terminal clamp assembly comprising:
a clasping mechanism having:
a top wall (at least 3; as seen in at least figs.1-3) with an upper battery post aperture (33; as seen in at least figs. 1-3) and an upper slit (the portion of 43 adjacent to upper battery post aperture 33; as seen in at least figs. 1 and 2), wherein the upper battery post aperture (33) is configured to receive an extent of a battery post (“battery pole” as disclosed in column 5, lines 1-29),
a bottom wall (4, as seen in at least figs. 1-4) with a lower battery post aperture (34; as seen in at least fig. 1) and a lower slit (the portion of 43 adjacent to lower battery post aperture 34; as seen in at least figs. 1 and 2), wherein the
a front wall (41, 42; figs. 1-3) integrally extending between the top and bottom walls (as seen in at least fig. 1) and including a front slit (the portion of 43 between the “upper slit” and “lower slit”), and wherein the upper slit, the lower slit, and the front slit are arranged to form a continuous slit (43) that extends from the upper battery post aperture, across the front wall and to the lower battery post aperture (as seen in at least figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Halbach discloses the battery terminal clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein when the battery post is positioned in the upper and lower battery post apertures (as disclosed in at least column 5, lines 1-30) and a securement assembly (45, 49; as seen in at least fig. 2) applies a sufficient compressive force (relative term) on the clasping mechanism: (i) a positive angle is formed between a rear extent of the top wall of the clasping mechanism and a substantially vertical wall of the battery post (as seen at least figs. 2 and 3), and (ii) a negative angle is formed between a rear extent of the bottom wall of the clasping mechanism and the substantially vertical wall of the battery post (as seen in at least figs. 2 and 3). The Examiner notes, as indicated above with the 112 rejections, that the “positive” and “negative” are relative terms and subject to a person’s point of view.
Regarding claim 5, Halbach discloses the battery terminal clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein in a first partially installed state: (i) the battery post is positioned in the upper and lower battery post apertures (33 and 34, fig. 1), (ii) a securement assembly (45, 49) applies less than a nominal force on the clasping mechanism (so it can be installed or removed), and (iii) an inner surface of the top wall of the clasping mechanism is positioned a first distance from an upper surface of the bottom wall of the clasping mechanism (as seen in at least figs. 2 and 3); and
wherein in an installed state: (a) the battery post is positioned in the upper and lower battery post apertures (33, 34), (b) the securement assembly (45, 49) applies a sufficient compressive force on the clasping mechanism, and (c) the inner surface of the top wall of the clasping mechanism is positioned a second distance from the upper surface of the bottom wall of the clasping mechanism, the second distance being greater than the first distance (as seen in at least figs. 2 and 3).
The Examiner notes that both “less than a nominal force” and “sufficient compression force” are both relative terms as noted above in the 112 rejection section.
Regarding claim 8, Halbach discloses the battery terminal clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein the clasping mechanism further includes: (a) a top left side wall (37 or 38) having a top left lower edge (away from the top side 3), and a top right side wall (38 or 37) having a top right lower edge (edge away from top side 3), and (b) a bottom left side wall (40 or 39) having a bottom left lower edge (edge away from bottom edge 4), and a bottom right side wall (39 or 40) having a bottom right lower edge (edge away from bottom edge 4); and wherein when the clasping mechanism is outlined on a blank in an unfolded state prior to formation of the battery terminal clamp assembly (as seen in at least fig. 1), the upper battery post aperture is aligned with the lower battery post aperture, the top left lower edge is not aligned with the bottom left lower edge, and the top right lower edge is not aligned with the bottom right lower edge (as seen in at least figs 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Halbach discloses the battery terminal clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein the clasping mechanism omits a side wall that is integrally formed with both the top and bottom walls (as seen in at least fig. 3; wherein the “rear” side wall at reference numeral 4 is only attached to the bottom surface 4, and not both the top and bottom surfaces 3, 4).
Regarding claim 10. The battery terminal clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein the clasping mechanism is formed by: (a) bending the top wall around a top bend line to be substantially parallel with the front wall, and (b) bending the bottom wall around a bottom bend line to be substantially parallel with the front wall, wherein the top and bottom bend lines are parallel with one another (as seen in fig. 1; as disclosed in at least column 4, lines 1-36).
Regarding claim 12, Halbach discloses the battery terminal clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein the top wall (3) includes a left side wall (37 or 38, depending on the perspective) with a rear surface (the surface of 37 or 38 that is not seen in figure 1), and wherein said rear surface is not positioned rearward of the rearmost extent of the upper battery post aperture (as seen in at least figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 13, Halbach discloses the battery terminal clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein the continuous slit is reflected about horizontal central axis AC and mirrored about vertical axis A1 (as seen in at least figs. 1-3)
Regarding claim 14, Halbach discloses the battery terminal clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein the continuous slit (43) does not extend to an external edge of the clasping mechanism (as seen in at least fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Halbach discloses the battery terminal clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein the front slit (43) traverses a substantial width of the front wall (as seen in at least figs. 1-3; wherein “substantial” is a relative term).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the battery terminal clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein the battery terminal clamp assembly meets applicable USCAR specifications and has a pull-off force that is greater than 3,000 Newtons (as interpreted above, Halbach’s device is indeed for a vehicle).
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halbach.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Halbach discloses the battery terminal clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein when the battery post resides within the upper and lower battery post apertures (as disclosed in at least column 5, lines 1-30) and a securement assembly (45, 49; as seen in at least fig. 2) applies a sufficient (a relative term) compressive force on the clasping mechanism.
Halbach does not specifically disclose the top wall of the clasping mechanism is not substantially parallel with the bottom wall of the clasping mechanism.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize not only that “substantially” is a relative term, but also that Halbach’s device is capable of having non-parallel top and bottom walls dependent on how much the metal is bent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange Halbach’s top wall of the clasping mechanism so that it is not “substantially” parallel with the bottom wall of the clasping mechanism.
One would have been motivated to do so to as regardless of whether or not the top and bottom wall are parallel, the securement assembly can function as intended to secure the clamping mechanism on the battery post.
Regarding claim 6, Halbach discloses the claimed invention as indicated above.
Halbach does not specifically disclose which surfaces the securement assembly (45, 49) are in contact with. Whilst the limitation is not expressly disclosed, it would have been obvious to modify the Halbach to include it for a secure attachment that provides a little “wiggle room”, with a predictable result of allowing the clamp to adjust with vibrations yet holding tight.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to position the securement assembly or shape the clamp assembly such that Halbach’s securement assembly is in direct contact with the top wall, and, also, not in direct contact with the front wall.
One would have been motivated to do so to keep the clamping assembly safely in place without negatively affecting the battery post.
Regarding claim 7, Halbach discloses the battery terminal clamp assembly of claim 2, wherein the securement assembly (45, 49) is configured to reduce the width of the continuous slit when the securement assembly moves from an untightened state SUT to a tightened state ST (as inferred by how the securement assembly works; as disclosed in at least column 5, lines 14-30).
Regarding claim 11, Halbach discloses the claimed invention as indicated above.
Halbach further teaches at least a third extend in a linear configuration (as seen in at least fig. 1). However, Halbach does not expressly teach the upper and lower slits having two extents with curvilinear configurations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited curvilinear configurations through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the shape is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide two curvilinear configurations on Halbach’s upper and lower slits as it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical.
One would have been motivated to do so to eliminate aligned upper and lower slits preventing debris from falling through the upper slit and lodging in the lower.
Claims 80-83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halbach as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Freitag et al. (US 9,608,254; hereinafter ‘Freitag’).
Regarding claims 80-83, Halbach discloses the claimed invention as indicated above. However, Halbach does not specifically upper and lower pull bars.
Freitag teaches a similar battery terminal clamp assembly including a securement assembly comprises: an upper pull bar comprising an outer flange and a body including an angled portion; a lower pull bar comprising an outer flange and a body including an angled portion; and an elongated coupler; wherein the body of the upper pull bar defines an oblong opening, and the body of the lower pull bar defines a threaded opening, wherein the elongated coupler (i) extends through an opening in the top wall of the clasping mechanism, (ii) extends through the oblong opening of the upper pull bar, and (iii) engages with the threaded opening of the lower pull bar; wherein the threaded opening is thermoformed; and wherein, in a tightened state, (i) the angled portion of the upper pull bar engages with the angled portion of the lower pull bar, and (ii) the outer flange of the upper pull bar and the outer flange of the lower pull bar apply a compression force on the clasping mechanism (all of this is seen in figs. 3-10 and the associated text.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Freitag’s upper and lower pull bars as Halbach’s securement assembly.
One would have been motivated to do so to provide further security to Halbach’s battery terminal clamp.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited as teaching similar battery terminal clamps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEAH S MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2719. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx 8:30am to 4:30pm.
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, Abdullah Riyami 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.
/LEAH MACCHIAROLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights