DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2026-04-02 has been entered.
In the amendment dated 2026-04-02, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 12, and 17 have been amended; Claim 6 has been (previously) canceled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Non-Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 have been amended to require “wherein the at least one latch is operable to attach the lanyard to a top portion of the base.” In the Remarks filed 2026-04-02, Applicant says that support for this amendment comes from ¶ “00123” of the filed specification which says:
PNG
media_image1.png
272
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is nothing in this paragraph about a latch being “operable to attach the lanyard to a top portion of the base.” Fig. 16 shows a lanyard 1522 attached to a dust cap 1518, the lanyard ambiguously attached near the latch 1520, presumably somewhere on the mounting plaque, as described in ¶ 0012.
PNG
media_image2.png
702
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The only references to a “top portion” of the base 1504 are in ¶ “00133” which does not refer to the lanyard at all. Neither in ¶ 00123, nor apparently anywhere else, does the specification explain what it would mean for the latch to be operable to attach the lanyard to a top portion of the base. It is not clear that the latch has anything at all to do with the operation of the lanyard, other than being mounted on the same “mounting plaque” 1510 as shown in, e.g., instant Fig. 15. The specification does not, therefore, appear to describe or otherwise disclose “at least one latch [being] operable to attach the lanyard to a top portion of the base.” The claim limitation has been interpreted as requiring a latch that does not interfere with the lanyard’s normal operation. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on the independent claims.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 have been amended to require “wherein the at least one latch is operable to attach the lanyard to a top portion of the base.” As discussed above, this limitation is not found in the specification as filed. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what “a top portion of the base” means, since “a top portion” is not clearly structurally distinguished from “a bottom portion”—does a sidewall count as “a top portion” of the base? a top half of a sidewall? or some other, even narrower “top portion” of the base? It is also unclear what the limitation necessarily implies about the structure of the latch and/or lanyard. How does “is operable to attach the lanyard to a top portion” actually delimit the latch, which it describes? The claim limitation has been interpreted broadly as requiring a lanyard attached to a portion of a base that is not the lowest portion (i.e. a base plate), such as a sidewall, and a latch that does not interfere with the lanyard in normal operation. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claims 1, 12, and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schraff (US 2017/0050259 to Schraff et al.) in view of Hori (US 2017/0259956 to Hori et al.) and Zhijian (US 2016/0141904 to Zhijian), in further view of Meltric (Meltric® Corp. Product Specification for 30° Poly Angle Adapter, 2011) and L-Com (L-Com® Global Connectivity Product Specification for Angled USB Products, 2014).
Regarding Claim 1, Schraff teaches:
a portable stud welder (abstract, Fig. 2) with a housing having a battery compartment for housing a battery 38 (Fig. 3, para 0024)
PNG
media_image3.png
440
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
476
476
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a lid 28 and a base 22 housing a removable battery battery
wherein the base includes at least one connector 62 secured in at least one recessed hole operable to connect to a cable (Figs. 2 and 6, paras 0024 and 0027)
Schraff does not teach:
at least one latch operable to attach the battery housing unit to a device
Hori, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a portable battery system for a device, teaches a removable battery pack with a housing, a lid, and a recessed power connection, that has latches 65 for quickly and easily attaching and detaching the battery housing from the other components of the device (e.g. Fig. 28).
PNG
media_image5.png
522
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a separate detachable battery pack with latches, as taught in Hori, for the device in Schraff, with the motivation to make it easier to attach and detach battery packs as needed for powering the device.
Schraff does not teach:
a lanyard operable to attach at least one dust cap, the lanyard of a length to prevent the at least one dust cap from moving underneath the at least one battery
PNG
media_image6.png
678
612
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Zhijian, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a carriable energy supply with a port 2-2 at the side, teaches a dust cap 4 attached to the port via a short, flexible attachment, reading on “lanyard” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word as a strap or thong, wherein the cap is incapable of falling below the bottom of the carriable container. It would have been obvious to supply a dust cap with a short lanyard, like that shown in Zhijian, to provide a way to protect the port from dust and other environmental contaminants and to keep the dust cap from being lost. Short attachment leashes were similarly obvious, as shown in Zhijian, and such a lanyard would be expected to restrict the cap from falling below the container within a substantial portion of the range of obvious lengths a PHOSITA might choose for the lanyard, as also shown in Zhijian.
Schraff also does not teach:
wherein an orientation of the cable is fixed at about a thirty-degree angle relative to the base
The Office notes that Schraff does teach a cable with a stiff portion at the connection point that angles a cable away from the suggested position of a latch on or near the lid of a battery pack in virtue of pointing the cable away from the housing body. Moreover, connectors with flat portions for alignment were well-known in the electrical arts. L-Com for example, teaches USB adapters, with specific, flat orientation angles for mating the cable with the cable connector that are angled at 45° to solve connection issues concerning the orientation of the cables leading out from a connector (p. 2).
PNG
media_image7.png
258
866
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Meltric, meanwhile, teaches a specific adapter for angling power connections at specifically 30° relative to the axis of insertion.
PNG
media_image8.png
496
620
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Neither of these seem to teach a rotational angling of 30° relative to the bottom plane of a housing within the 2-d plane that is perpendicular to the axis of cable insertion, as shown in instant Fig. 17, but the claim as written only requires 30° relative to the base. It would have been obvious to use a fixed angle of 45°or 30° relative to the base of the housing in Schraff, as L-Com and Meltric render obvious such orientations, for the purposes of disposing the cable away from and above the bottom, to minimize the cable catching on either the housing or what might be below it. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 3, Schraff teaches:
a recessed lid (see Figs.)
Schraff does not teach a connection port in a recessed portion of the lid. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. It would have been obvious to provide a connection port at any surface of the device, as desired, with the motivation of ensuring ease of access, depending on geometries of the device and battery pack.
Regarding Claim 7, Schraff does not explicitly teach:
unitary and integrally formed piece of plastic
Plastic was a conventional battery housing material, being insulative, relatively cheap, and moldable. Integrally molded plastic would have been obvious, since it was a common material, and integrally molded material is a conventional method for forming a strong housing of plastic. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Making integral what had previously been made in multiple pieces has been found to be obvious. See In re Larson, 340 F. 2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP § 2144.04 V, B [R-5].
Regarding Claim 8, Hori renders obvious:
a removable battery pack with latches, including a “mounting plaque” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase, where the pack is mounted
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a separate detachable battery pack with latches, as taught in Hori, for the device in Schraff, with the motivation to make it easier to attach and detach battery packs as needed for powering the device.
Regarding Claims 10 and 16, Schraff teaches:
screw-like fasteners for holding the lid on (see e.g. Fig. 5)
Regarding Claims 11, 15, 20, Schraff teaches:
the recessed portion is located at a side of the base upwards from a bottom edge, with four interior sides (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 12, Schraff teaches:
a portable stud welder (abstract, Fig. 2) with a housing having a battery compartment for housing a battery 38 (Fig. 3, para 0024)
a lid 28 and a base 22 housing a removable battery battery
wherein the base includes at least one connector 62 secured in at least one recessed hole operable to connect to a cable (Figs. 2 and 6, paras 0024 and 0027)
See also Hori which teaches a similar recessed connector hole in the base.
Schraff does not teach:
a lanyard operable to attach at least one dust cap, the lanyard of a length to prevent the at least one dust cap from moving underneath the at least one battery
Zhijian, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a carriable energy supply with a port 2-2 at the side, teaches a dust cap 4 attached to the port via a short, flexible attachment, reading on “lanyard” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word as a strap or thong, wherein the cap is incapable of falling below the bottom of the carriable container. It would have been obvious to supply a dust cap with a short lanyard, like that shown in Zhijian, to provide a way to protect the port from dust and other environmental contaminants and to keep the dust cap from being lost. Short attachment leashes were similarly obvious, as shown in Zhijian, and such a lanyard would be expected to restrict the cap from falling below the container within a substantial portion of the range of obvious lengths a PHOSITA might choose for the lanyard, as also shown in Zhijian.
Schraff also does not teach:
an connector with an alignment portion ensuring alignment of a cable attached to the at least one connector
wherein an orientation of the cable is fixed at about a thirty-degree angle relative to the base
The Office notes that Schraff does teach a cable with a stiff portion at the connection point that angles a cable away from the suggested position of a latch on or near the lid of a battery pack in virtue of pointing the cable away from the housing body. Moreover, connectors with flat portions for alignment were well-known in the electrical arts. L-Com for example, teaches USB adapters, with specific, flat orientation angles for mating the cable with the cable connector that are angled at 45° to solve connection issues concerning the orientation of the cables leading out from a connector (p. 2). Meltric, meanwhile, teaches a specific adapter for angling power connections at specifically 30° relative to the axis of insertion. Neither of these seem to teach a rotational angling of 30° relative to the bottom plane of a housing within the 2-d plane that is perpendicular to the axis of cable insertion, as shown in instant Fig. 17, but the claim as written only requires 30° relative to the base. It would have been obvious to use a fixed angle of 45°or 30° relative to the base of the housing in Schraff, as L-Com and Meltric render obvious such orientations, for the purposes of disposing the cable away from and above the bottom, to minimize the cable catching on either the housing or what might be below it. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 13, Schraff teaches:
the connector being secured by plugging in at least one recessed hole (Figs.)
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Schraff teaches:
a portable stud welder (abstract, Fig. 2) with a housing having a battery compartment for housing a battery 38 (Fig. 3, para 0024)
a lid 28 and a base 22 housing a removable battery battery
wherein the base includes at least one connector 62 secured in at least one recessed hole operable to connect to a cable (Figs. 2 and 6, paras 0024 and 0027)
See also Hori which teaches a similar recessed connector hole in the base.
Schraff does not teach:
a lanyard operable to attach at least one dust cap, the lanyard of a length to prevent the at least one dust cap from moving underneath the at least one battery
Zhijian, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a carriable energy supply with a port 2-2 at the side, teaches a dust cap 4 attached to the port via a short, flexible attachment, reading on “lanyard” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word as a strap or thong, wherein the cap is incapable of falling below the bottom of the carriable container. It would have been obvious to supply a dust cap with a short lanyard, like that shown in Zhijian, to provide a way to protect the port from dust and other environmental contaminants and to keep the dust cap from being lost. Short attachment leashes were similarly obvious, as shown in Zhijian, and such a lanyard would be expected to restrict the cap from falling below the container within a substantial portion of the range of obvious lengths a PHOSITA might choose for the lanyard, as also shown in Zhijian.
Schraff also does not teach:
an connector with an alignment portion ensuring alignment of a cable attached to the at least one connector
wherein an orientation of the cable is fixed at about a thirty-degree angle relative to the base
The Office notes that Schraff does teach a cable with a stiff portion at the connection point that angles a cable away from the suggested position of a latch on or near the lid of a battery pack in virtue of pointing the cable away from the housing body. Moreover, connectors with flat portions for alignment were well-known in the electrical arts. L-Com for example, teaches USB adapters, with specific, flat orientation angles for mating the cable with the cable connector that are angled at 45° to solve connection issues concerning the orientation of the cables leading out from a connector (p. 2). Meltric, meanwhile, teaches a specific adapter for angling power connections at specifically 30° relative to the axis of insertion. Neither of these seem to teach a rotational angling of 30° relative to the bottom plane of a housing within the 2-d plane that is perpendicular to the axis of cable insertion, as shown in instant Fig. 17, but the claim as written only requires 30° relative to the base. It would have been obvious to use a fixed angle of 45°or 30° relative to the base of the housing in Schraff, as L-Com and Meltric render obvious such orientations, for the purposes of disposing the cable away from and above the bottom, to minimize the cable catching on either the housing or what might be below it. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schraff (US 2017/0050259 to Schraff et al.) in view of Hori (US 2017/0259956 to Hori et al.), Zhijian (US 2016/0141904 to Zhijian), Meltric (Meltric® Corp. Product Specification for 30° Poly Angle Adapter, 2011) and L-Com (L-Com® Global Connectivity Product Specification for Angled USB Products, 2014), in further view of in further view of Muller (DE 20-2012-104339 to Muller et al., English translation provided) and/or Romanko (US 2010/0300744 to Romanko et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Schraff does not teach:
a coating comprising copper on an interior surface
Muller and Romanko, however, directed towards housing materials for electrical devices, teach the use of copper layers to shield the interior from electromagnetic radiation. It would have been obvious to provide a copper coating layer on the inside of a battery housing with the motivation to shield the inside/outside from outside/inside influences in a portable system of many parts.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schraff (US 2017/0050259 to Schraff et al.) in view of Hori (US 2017/0259956 to Hori et al.), Zhijian (US 2016/0141904 to Zhijian), Meltric (Meltric® Corp. Product Specification for 30° Poly Angle Adapter, 2011) and L-Com (L-Com® Global Connectivity Product Specification for Angled USB Products, 2014), in further view of Onnerud (US 2017/0214103 to Onnerud et al.).
Regarding Claims 4 and 9, Schraff does not teach:
a composite metal foam housing
Onnerud, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery housing, teaches a variety of substitutable materials, including metal foams, aluminum, etc. (para 0162). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to use a composite metal foam housing, since Schraff does not teach a particular material and composite metal foam was known in the art.
Claims 5, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schraff (US 2017/0050259 to Schraff et al.) in view of Hori (US 2017/0259956 to Hori et al.), Zhijian (US 2016/0141904 to Zhijian), Meltric (Meltric® Corp. Product Specification for 30° Poly Angle Adapter, 2011) and L-Com (L-Com® Global Connectivity Product Specification for Angled USB Products, 2014), in further view of Bailey (US Patent No. 3,926,499 to Bailey et al.).
Regarding Claims 5, 14, and 19, Schraff does not teach:
wherein the recessed hole is substantially circular except for a flat portion of the at least one recessed hole, wherein the flat portion facilitates installation of the at least one connector
Bailey, however, directed towards an electrical connector, teaches an interface portion with a flat edge for interfacing with a power socket of a device in a locked or predetermined orientation (see Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image9.png
166
168
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to use a power connector with a pre-determined engagement orientation, as taught in Bailey, since such connectors were conventional in the art for ensuring the use of a particular type of power cord in a locked orientation.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks filed 2026-04-02 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. The claims have been rejected for new matter and indefiniteness under § 112.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723