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 Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 10 and cancelled claims 8, 11 and 19. Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-18, and 20 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims over the art of record is not persuasive for reasons detailed below. Examiner maintains the rejections of the claims over the art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that secondary reference (safeitforparts) is insufficient for suggesting AC functionality for the structure recited in the primary reference (Core) because the secondary reference suggests AC functionality for a standalone portable power station, not modular battery packs that mechanically and electrically connect to one another, each having its own inverter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Core would have appreciated the feature suggested by saveitforparts (e.g., AC output port) for each battery of the linked modular battery pack.
In this case, Core has already recognized the usefulness of the power base/battery pack as a single pack, or parallel connected packs of increased power (e.g., from 70 Wh to from 140 Wh), to provide energy on demand to external devices operating based on direct current (DC) during unexpected situations, see page 5/13 of the action; the DC power ports used to provide power to external devices are provided on each battery, thereby allowing each battery to be used in the unexpected situation. Core does not suggest the use of the power base/battery pack with devices operating based on alternating current (AC); however, the safeitforparts has recognized the usefulness of a power base/battery pack to power not only DC based devices, but additionally AC based devices, in situations where power is needed but unavailable (e.g., power outages). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate an AC output power port on each battery pack of Core (just like Core recognized the usefulness of a DC power port on each battery) because the prior art has recognized the additional capability is useful in providing AC power to AC based devices during power outages and/or when power is desired and unavailable; thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that each pack includes both a DC power port and an AC power port to be able to provide additional functionality during power outages. The saveitforparts reference suggest an inverter for the AC power port (i.e., 120V wall outlet/inverter outlet, see video at 1:15-1:19); the inclusion of an AC power port in each battery pack, so that each power pack is available as backup power of AC based devices during a power outage, suggests (or necessitates) the inclusion of an inverter in each battery pack to enable the AC output.
Applicant argues the prior art does not suggest the cells are electrically connected in parallel because increased total capacity does not establish the packs charge in parallel or discharge in parallel; applicant concludes, an increase in available watt-hours only reflects an aggregation of stored energy, not the underlying electrical topology. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive as evidenced by CoreSWX, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQLcHbpzpkc, NAB 2022 Day 3 Featuring Powerbase Edge Link & Lite, 27 April 2022), who suggests the linking of the two power bases, which doubles power (e.g., 70 Wh to 140 Wh), is because the cells are in parallel, see 1:31 to 1:51 of the video. Further, there are two fundamental ways to connect batteries (i.e., parallel connection and series connection); a parallel connection sums the capacity, while a series connection sums the voltage, see Tudron (US 20020076580). Thus, one of ordinary skill would conclude the doubling of power observed by Core, who electrically connects two 70 Wh batteries to obtain 140 Wh by way of the 8 pin/pad connection, is likely the result of a parallel connection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Core SWX Youtube video (i.e., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRjaSJXSIKo, Title: Core's Powerbase Edge Link and Lite Overview, posted by: Core SWX on 14 October 2022) in view of saveitforparts Youtube video (i.e., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn0v-OvllT8, Title: Allpowers S200 Portable Power Station & Solar Panel Review, posted by: saveifforparts on 03 March 2023), hereinafter Core and saveitforparts (both of record).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Core suggests a battery pack, comprising: a first mechanical connection (e.g., hook) configured to mechanically couple to a mechanical connection (groove) of an adjacent battery pack (see 0:34 to 0:37, and 2:00, of video).
Video at 2:00 (groove and hook on one battery pack):
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (hook)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (groove)]
PNG
media_image1.png
327
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Video at 0.34-0:37: connection of two packs via hook and groove.
PNG
media_image2.png
647
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
525
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Core further suggests a first electrical connection (e.g., 8 pins on one pack) configured to electrically couple to an electrical connection (e.g., 8 flat contact pads on another pack) of the adjacent battery pack, see 0:31 and 0:34-0:37 of video.
Video at 0:31 showing the contact pads and at 0:34 showing the pins:
PNG
media_image4.png
596
461
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
647
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Core suggests a DC input power port on each battery pack configured to allow charging from a DC power source and a DC output power port on each battery pack configured to provide power to a DC-based device (e.g., via USB C PD, or D-tap (P-tap), or V-mount, see e.g., 0.31-1:09), and an additional port on each battery pack comprising USB or DTAP (e.g., when the V-mount is considered the DC input/output power port, the DTAP port and USB C PD port is the additional port; alternatively, when the USB C PD port is the DC input and the DC output, the DTAP is the additional port, see video at 0:31 and 0:41 showing various ports).
Core suggests the power base offers a solution to power various accessories upon demand/need; Core includes a DC output port in each battery pack, thereby allowing the use of each power base to power various DC applications (i.e., receiver, monitor) in unexpected situations (see e.g., 2:18-3:10). Core does not suggest an AC output power port configured to provide power to an AC-based device. However, saveitforparts suggests a power base/bank which possess additional capability including the ability to power not only DC based devices, but AC based devices via an AC output power port (120V wall outlet/inverter outlet, see video at 1:15-1:19), which is useful in case of power outages (e.g., snow storms), or situations where no power is available but needed (e.g., during hiking and fishing trips), see 5:19-5:35. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate an AC output power port on each power base (provided Core appreciates DC output power ports on each power base) to enable additional capability to the power base to power not only DC based devices, but AC based devices, particularly useful during power outages (unexpected situations) or situations where no power is available but needed, as suggested by saveitforparts.
In activating the needed AC output (“inverter outlet”, see video 1:15-1:19), saveitforparts holds the “AC on” button (see e.g., video 7:23), thereby suggesting a power inverter configured to convert stored DC energy (i.e., from battery) into AC output for the AC output port. Core was modified with saveitforparts to suggests the additional capability of an AC output power port for each battery pack during situations (e.g., snowstorms, power outages, fishing or hiking trips) where AC power may be useful. The inclusion of the AC output power port in each battery pack suggests (or necessitates) a power inverter for each pack, thereby enable the additional functionality of the AC output power port on each battery, as suggested by saveitforparts,
Core suggests the battery pack and the adjacent battery pack (e.g., first battery pack, second battery pack) are mechanically coupled and electrically coupled with each other (see e.g., video at 0:24-0:37, where two power bases are linked mechanically and electrically via 8 pin/pad, resulting in a doubling in power (i.e., 70 Wh to 140 Wh) and extended run time; the doubling of power and extended run time suggest the parallel connection). Thus, the packs are configured to discharge in parallel through the DC output power port, thereby providing 140 Wh from the batteries to the camera, or via the AC output power port in view of the saveitforparts modification. Considering the packs are electrically connected in parallel to discharge, they are also configured to charge in parallel.
Regarding Claim 2, Core suggests the first electrical connection automatically electrically couples to the electrical connection of the adjacent battery pack upon the first mechanical connection mechanically engaging the mechanical connection of the adjacent battery pack (see 0:34 to 0:37 of video).
Regarding Claim 4, Core suggests the first mechanical connection includes at least one latch (e.g., hook grips the groove, see video at 0.34-0:37).
Regarding Claim 7, Core suggests the battery pack is a cinematography battery pack (see e.g., e.g., 2:49, a video camera is shown).
Regarding Claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Core suggests a battery system, comprising: a first battery pack, including: a first mechanical connection (hook); a first electrical connection (e.g., 8 pins, see video at 0:34); a DC input power port (e.g., UBC C PD, V-mount, etc.) configured to allow charging from a DC power source; a DC output power port configured to provide power to a DC-based device (e.g., DTAP, USB); and a second battery pack, including: a second mechanical connection (groove) configured to mechanically couple to the first mechanical connection (i.e., hook) of the first battery pack (see video at 0:31-0:34); a second electrical connection (e.g., 8 contact pads, see video at 0:31) configured to electrically couple to the first electrical connection (i.e., 8 pins) of the first battery pack (e.g., see video at 0:31-0:34); a DC input power port configured to allow charging from a DC power source (e.g., USB C PD, V-mount, etc., see video at 0:31 and 0:41); a DC output power port configured to provide power to a DC-based device. (e.g., DTAP, USB, etc.). As with the rejection of claim 1, the AC output power port and inverter on each pack is made obvious by in view of safeitforparts, hence not repeated here; the mechanical and electrical coupling of the first and second battery is also detailed under the rejection of claim 1, hence not repeated here.
Regarding Claim 12, Core suggests the first electrical connection of the first battery pack automatically electrically couples to the second electrical connection of the second battery pack upon the first mechanical connection of the first battery pack mechanically engaging the second mechanical connection of the second battery pack (see 0:34 to 0:37 of video).
Regarding Claim 14, Core suggests the first mechanical connection of the first battery pack includes at least one latch (e.g., hook), and wherein the second mechanical connection of the second battery pack includes at least one latch receiver (i.e., groove, see video at 0:34 to 0:37 and 2:00, labeled under the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Core suggests the at least one latch is movable between a first position where the at least one latch is recessed below a surface of the first battery pack, and a second position where at least a portion of the at least one latch protrudes from the surface of the first battery pack.
PNG
media_image5.png
380
370
media_image5.png
Greyscale
first position, recessed (0:34)
PNG
media_image6.png
359
424
media_image6.png
Greyscale
second position, protruding (0:36)
Regarding Claim 16, Core suggests the at least one latch (hook) of the first battery pack is configured to mechanically engage the latch receiver (groove) of the second battery pack when the at least one latch is in the second position (i.e., a slight protrusion of the latch remains when mated with the groove of an adjacent batter, as shown at 0:37 of the video).
PNG
media_image7.png
511
486
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(0:37)
Regarding Claim 18, Core suggests the first battery pack is a cinematography battery pack, and wherein the second battery pack is a cinematography battery pack (see video at 0:38).
Regarding Claim 20, Core suggests each of the first battery pack and the second battery pack includes an additional power port, wherein the additional power port is a DTAP port or a USB port (e.g., with the USB C PD port acting as the DC input/output power port, the DTAP port is an additional port; alternatively, with the DTAP port acting as the DC input/output power port, the USB C port is the additional port, etc., see video at 0:41).
PNG
media_image8.png
576
880
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(0:41)
Claim(s) 3, 6, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Core and saveitforparts (cited above) further in view of Jannard (US 2017/0171371), hereinafter Jannard.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Core does not suggest the first mechanical connection includes at least one magnet, or the first mechanical connection of the first battery pack includes at least one magnet, and the second mechanical connection of the second battery pack includes at least one magnet. However, Jannard suggests a device (cell phone) is set up to interchangeably couple multiple modules (batteries, power modules, etc.) thereto by physical coupling through the use of interlocking structures, fasteners, interference fit surface structures, and latch/surface structures, in addition to, or in place of, magnets which provide attractive forces between modules, see e.g., Figs. 13-14, [0245]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the first mechanical connection includes at least one magnet, or the first mechanical connection of the first battery pack includes at least one magnet, and the second mechanical connection of the second battery pack includes at least one magnet, with the expectation of coupling the batteries to each other, as suggested by Jannard.
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Core does not suggest a second mechanical connection configured to mechanically couple to another mechanical connection of the adjacent battery pack, wherein the second mechanical connection includes at least one magnet (in addition to the hook/groove disclosed); or the first battery pack includes a third mechanical connection configured to mechanically couple to a fourth mechanical connection of the second battery pack, wherein the third mechanical connection includes at least one magnet, and wherein the fourth mechanical connection includes at least one magnet (in addition to the hook/groove disclosed). However, Jannard suggests a device (cell phone) is set up to interchangeably couple multiple modules (batteries, power modules, etc.) thereto; the device and modules are physically coupled through the use of interlocking structures, fasteners, interference fit surface structures, and latch/surface structures, in addition to, or in place of, magnets which provide attractive forces between modules, see e.g., Figs. 13-14, [0245]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a second mechanical connection configured to mechanically couple to another mechanical connection of the adjacent battery pack, wherein the second mechanical connection includes at least one magnet, or the first battery pack includes a third mechanical connection configured to mechanically couple to a fourth mechanical connection of the second battery pack, wherein the third mechanical connection includes at least one magnet, and wherein the fourth mechanical connection includes at least one magnet, with the expectation of coupling the batteries to each other, as suggested by Jannard.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729