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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the applicant did not give clear reason for election with traverse. This is not found persuasive because the applicant did not give clear reason for election with traverse and while the independent claims 1 and 17 of elected Group I recites for a first securing structure and a second securing structures, the independent claim 10 of non-elected Group II does not require the first and second securing structures of Group I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/21/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following problems.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
60 shown in Figure 3A.
62 shown in Figure 3B.
64 shown in Figure 3C.
66 shown in Figure 3D.
54 and 68 shown in Figure 3F.
96’ shown in Fig. 11.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "92" and "96" have both been used to designate conductive elements.
The reference number “70” shown in Figure 3G and 5A are pointing at two different places.
The reference number “72” shown in Figure 3J and 5B are pointing at two different places.
The reference number “80” shown in Figure 6 and 7A are pointing at two different places.
In Figure 7A, the larger gauge wires are assigned with the reference number “80”. However, in Figure 7B, the larger gauge wires are assigned with the reference number “86”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “136” has been used to designate both conductive region (see Paragraph [0053], line 7) and sensor (see Paragraph [0055], line 7).
First and second securing structures are not identified in the drawings with corresponding reference numbers and lines pointing at the first and second securing structures. Therefore, it is not clear what structures shown in the drawings are the first and second securing structures.
It seems that the positions of the reference numbers 96 and 92 in Figures 8A to 8D are reversed in Figures 9A and 10A-12B.
In Figures 12B and 13, the same conductive elements are assigned with two different reference numbers 92 and 96.
It seems that throughout the entire drawings, the positions of the reference numbers 92 and 96 are changing respect to each other.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
First occurring abbreviation should be written with a full terminology with the abbreviation enclosed within a parenthesis.
“SMBus” in Paragraph [0008], line 7
“SKU” and “BIOS” in Paragraph [0005], lines 4 and 13
“ROM” in Paragraph [0037], line 11
“USB”, “ASIC” and “BMC” in Paragraph [0039], lines 7, 10 and 18
“5VDC” in Paragraph [0042], line 14
“PCB” in Paragraph [0043], line 11
“GPIO” in Paragraph [0053], line 7
The examiner suggests the applicant to use the same terminology with the same reference number consistently throughout the specification for clear understanding.
Paragraph [0041], line 19 (Page 11, line 1) the examiner suggests the applicant to change “a flexible printed circuit 52” to -- a flexible printed circuit board 52 -- because all other places in the specification describe the reference number 52 as “flexible printed circuit board 52”.
The reference number “112” is described either “conductive endpieces” and “endpieces”.
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 1-9 and 17-20 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.
Claims 1 and 17 recite, “a first securing structure” and “a second securing structure”. However, it is not clear what the first and second securing structures are since the specification does not describe these two securing structures with assigned reference numbers and the drawings are not pointing out these two securing structures with lines and the corresponding reference numbers.
Claims 3 and 19, line 3 recites, “a board contact”. However, it is not clear what this board contact is since the specification does not describe this board contact with an assigned reference number and the drawings are not pointing out this board contact with a line and the assigned reference number
Claim 17, line 1 recites, “A system”. It is not clear what kind of system that the instant invention is referring to since so many different kinds of systems exist in the present world.
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.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al (US 8,727,813 B2).
Yang discloses a system to power an information handling system, the system comprising: (claim 17) a battery 3 configured to store power; a battery connector 20 interfaced with the battery 3 and having plural conductive elements 23; and a battery receptacle 10 coupled to a motherboard 4 and having plural exposed conductive members 15 aligned to interface with the battery connector plural conductive elements 23, the battery receptacle 10 having a first securing structure 113 aligned to engage the battery connector 20 when inserted horizontally and a second securing structure 114 aligned to engage the battery connector 20 when inserted vertically; (claim 18) wherein the battery receptacle 10 further comprises: a frame having plural slots 131, each slot 131 holding a conductive member 15; and an endpiece (not labeled, see two C-shaped elements shown in Fig. 1) coupled to each of opposing ends of the frame (see Fig. 1).
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) 1-2 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al (US 11,592,883 B2) in view of Yang et al (US 8,727,813 B2).
Shih discloses an information handling system 10 comprising: a motherboard 20; a processor 22 coupled to the motherboard 20 and operable to execute instructions that process information; a memory 24 coupled to the motherboard 20 and interfaced with the processor 22, the memory 24 operable to store the instructions and information; a battery 41 configured to store power.
However, Shih does not disclose the details of a battery connector and a battery receptacle as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Yang discloses (claim 1) a battery connector 20 interfaced with a battery 3 and having plural conductive elements 23; and a battery receptacle 10 coupled to a motherboard 4 and having plural exposed conductive members 15 aligned to interface with the battery connector plural conductive elements 23, the battery receptacle 10 having a first securing structure 113 aligned to engage the battery connector 20 when inserted horizontally and a second securing structure 114 aligned to engage the battery connector 20 when inserted vertically; (claim 2) wherein the battery receptacle 10 further comprises: a frame having plural slots 131, each slot 131 holding a conductive member 15; and an endpiece (not labeled, see two C-shaped elements shown in Fig. 1) coupled to each of opposing ends of the frame (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the information handling system taught by Shih such that it would have a battery connector and a battery receptacle taught by Yang because it is common knowledge that many different types of electrical connectors are available to electrically connect a battery to a motherboard of the information handling system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAE MOON HYEON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 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, Abdullah A 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.
/hmh/
/Hae Moon Hyeon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831