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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The preliminary claim amendments filed 11/07/2024 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-18 are canceled; no claims have been added, amended, or withdrawn. Claims 19-24 are now pending and under consideration.
As noted by Applicant’s remarks filed 02/03/2026, and as further discussed via a brief telephonic discussion between Applicant’s representative Michael Nieberding and the examiner on 02/03/2026, the aforementioned preliminary claim amendments were incorrectly identified with the designation “Specification” in the electronic patent application file wrapper, and the restriction requirement mailed 12/31/2025 incorrectly addressed claims 1-24 as originally-filed on 11/07/2024, as only the claims of Group II (claims 19-24) are now pending by virtue of the aforementioned preliminary claim amendments. Therefore, the restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “too” in line 8, which appears to be a misspelling of --[[too]] to--.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Claim 24 refers to “the second solenoid” in line 2; however, claim 24 is dependent from claim 19, and claim 19 does not previously introduce “a second solenoid,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the second solenoid” in line 2 of claim 24. Claim 19 does, however, previously introduce “a solenoid” in line 3, and it is unclear whether the “second solenoid” referred to in line 2 of claim 24 is intended to be the same as or different from the “solenoid” previously introduced in line 3 of claim 19, and, in the latter case, it is unclear whether the “second solenoid” referred to in line 2 of claim 24 is intended to be included by the claimed “enclosure structure.” Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the second solenoid” in line 2 of claim 24 has been interpreted as referring to the “solenoid” previously introduced in line 3 of claim 19.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2517457 A to Carmody (hereinafter: “Carmody”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0053913 to Sinn (hereinafter: “Sinn”), and in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,814,701 to Rayer (hereinafter: “Rayer”).
With respect to claim 19, Carmody teaches an enclosure structure (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2) comprising: an enclosure (100); a solenoid (232) mounted to an interior portion of the enclosure (apparent from at least Fig. 2); and at least one battery contactor (as discussed by at least ¶ 0017 & 0024).
Carmody further teaches that current is supplied to windings (216) of a starter motor (200, 202) from a battery (“an energy storage device, for example a battery”) to operate the starter motor when the solenoid is activated with current supplied from the battery via the battery contactor (as discussed by at least ¶ 0017, 0021 & 0024).
Carmody appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the enclosure structure further includes each of an elongated member extending through a surface of the enclosure and mechanically connected to the battery contactor; and a handle connected to a portion of the elongated member located exterior to the enclosure, wherein the handle is configured too manually activate the battery contactor to activate the solenoid to supply a cranking current signal to windings of a starter motor to operate the starter motor.
Sinn teaches an analogous structure (apparent from at least Figs. 1-6) comprising: a solenoid (solenoid 32); at least one battery contactor (first electrical contact 32); an elongated member (62) mechanically connected to the battery contactor; and a handle (64) connected to a portion of the elongated member (apparent from at least Figs. 3-6), wherein the handle is configured to manually activate the battery contactor to activate the solenoid to supply a cranking current signal to windings of a starter motor to operate the starter motor (apparent from at least Figs. 3 & 4 in view of at least ¶ 0032-0033, 0035-0039 & 0047).
Rayer demonstrates that it was known in the art to connect a rotatable handle (64) to a portion of an elongated member (23) located exterior to an analogous enclosure (11, 12) of which said elongated member extends through a surface of the enclosure and is mechanically connected to a motor starter power switch (57) (apparent from at least Figs. 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the enclosure structure of Carmody with the teachings of Sinn to further include each of an elongated member mechanically connected to the battery contactor and a handle connected to a portion of the elongated member to beneficially allow a user to start an engine if a starter relay has failed via manual operation of the handle by the user to manually activate the battery contactor to activate the solenoid to supply a cranking current signal to the starter motor (and windings thereof) to operate the starter motor (as discussed by at least the Abstract of Sinn).
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to have modified the enclosure structure of Carmody modified supra with the teachings of Rayer such that the elongated member extends through a surface of the enclosure, and such that the handle is connected to a portion of the elongated member located exterior to the enclosure to beneficially enable a user external to the enclosure to manually operate the handle to manually activate the battery contactor to activate the solenoid (which is within the enclosure of Carmody).
With respect to claim 20, Carmody modified supra teaches the enclosure structure of claim 19, wherein the elongated member is a cylindrical shaft (apparent from at least Figs 3-6 of Sinn).
With respect to claim 21, Carmody modified supra teaches the enclosure structure of claim 19, wherein the enclosure is an explosion proof structure (as discussed by at least ¶ 0030-0031 of Carmody).
With respect to claim 22, Carmody modified supra teaches the enclosure structure of claim 21, wherein the explosion proof structure comprises a metallic material (as discussed by at least ¶ 0031 of Carmody).
With respect to claim 23, Carmody modified supra teaches the enclosure structure of claim 19, wherein the enclosure comprises a door (144) operable to provide access to the interior portion of the enclosure (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 of Carmody).
With respect to claim 24, Carmody modified supra teaches the enclosure structure of claim 19, wherein the cranking current signal is supplied to the second solenoid by a battery [note: as discussed in detail above with respect to the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), “the second solenoid” is indefinite for lack of proper antecedent basis in the claims and has been interpreted as referring to the “solenoid” previously introduced in claim 19; for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0017, 0021 & 0024 of Carmody, and as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 19].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747