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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/2/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 12/05/25.
The applicant submits that the amendments overcome the previous rejection.
The examiner agrees, and the previous rejection is withdrawn. A new basis for rejection appears below as necessitated by amendment.
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.
(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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) by Hara, US20160190524A1.
Regarding claim 19, Hara teaches a system, comprising: a battery pack (cell); and a cordless device (electronic apparatus)[0003],
the cordless device comprising a battery bay (mounting portion (44)), wherein the battery bay is configured for exchangeable reception of the battery pack (battery device (1) is detachably mounted)[0061];
at least a guiding web of a first type (hook pieces (61)), wherein the guiding web of the first type is configured for touching the battery pack in at least one guiding groove (engaging portion (8)) of the battery pack on at least one circumferential side of the battery pack for guided positioning of the battery pack in a first direction (z or y direction)[fig. 7] in the battery bay [fig. 1][fig. 7]; and
at least a guiding web of a second type (side surfaces (45d)), different than the guiding web of the first type (hooks (61))[fig. 7], wherein the guiding web of the second type is configured for touching the battery pack on at least one circumferential surface of the battery pack on at least the same circumferential side of the battery pack for guided positioning of the battery pack in a second direction (x direction)[fig. 7], different from the first direction, in the battery bay [0063][fig. 7], and
wherein the guiding web of the first type (61) and the guiding web of the second type (45d) are arranged on a same inner circumferential side of the battery bay [fig. 7],
wherein, from at least the guiding web of the first type (61) to the received battery pack (1), a distance along the first direction is less than a distance along the second direction [fig. 1][fig. 7], and
wherein at least the guiding web of the second type is configured so as not to touch and extend into any guiding grooves of the battery pack (side surface (45d) of opening (45) of mounting portion (44) does not correspond with a groove of battery (1))[0063][fig. 1][fig. 7].
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 1, 2, and 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Murakami, US20220271378A1, and Masatoshi, US20210359461A1.
Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches cordless device (battery pack (2))[fig. 2], comprising:
a battery bay, wherein the battery bay is configured for exchangeable reception of a battery pack (battery charger (100))[fig. 13];
at least a guiding web of a first type (guide rib (110))[fig .13], wherein the guiding web of the first type is configured for touching the battery pack in at least one guiding groove of the battery pack on at least one circumferential side of the battery pack for guided positioning of the battery pack in a first direction in the battery bay (guiding groove (34) guides battery pack in a vertical direction ie. up/down)[fig. 2][fig. 13 and 15]; and
at least a guiding web of a second type (guide rib (112))[fig. 13], different than the guiding web of the first type (different sizes)[fig. 13], wherein the guiding web of the second type is configured for touching the battery pack on at least one circumferential surface of the battery pack on at least the same circumferential side of the battery pack for guided positioning of the battery pack in a second direction (having second guide prevents movement in a front to rear direction)[fig. 13], different from the first direction (up and down)[fig. 13], in the battery bay (mount (100))[fig. 13]
and wherein the guiding web of the first type (110) and the guiding web of the second type (112) are arranged on a same inner circumferential side of the battery bay [fig. 2][fig. 13].
Murakami does not teach at least two guiding webs of a second type, and wherein the two guiding webs of the second type are offset along the first direction on at least the circumferential surface.
Masatoshi teaches a cordless device comprising a battery bay (mounting portion (220) configured for exchangeable reception of a battery pack (300)[0002][fig. 2] comprising at least two guiding webs of a second type, and wherein the two guiding webs of the second type are offset along the first direction on at least the circumferential surface (plurality of ribs (512) offset from one another and on a circumferential surface configured to guide positioning of the battery pack (300) in the battery bay (220))[0019][0060][fig. 6]. The increase of guiding webs of a second type from one, as in Murakami, to being a plurality, as in Masatoshi, is considered to have been obvious to an ordinary artisan as an obvious duplication of parts [MPEP 2144.04 V B]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the plurality of guiding webs of Masatoshi into the battery bay of Murakami as an obvious duplication of parts.
Regarding claim 2, combined Murakami teaches the cordless device according to claim 1,
Further, Murakami teaches wherein the guiding web of the first type projects further forward along the second direction towards the battery pack than the guiding web of the second type (rib (110) is larger than rib (112) in all three directions)[fig .13]
Regarding claim 12, combined Murakami teaches the cordless device according to claim 1.
Further, Murakami teaches wherein at least one of: (i) the battery bay is substantially parallelepiped-shaped [fig. 13].
Regarding claim 13, combined Murakami teaches the cordless device according to claim 1,
Further, Murakami teaches wherein the cordless device is (ii) a charger for electrical charging of the battery pack (battery charger mount (100))[fig. 13].
Regarding claim 14, combined Murakami teaches a system, comprising: a cordless device according to claim 1.
Further, Murakami teaches the battery pack (battery pack (2) and mount (100)),
wherein, from at least the guiding web of the first type to the received battery pack, a distance along the first direction is less than a distance along the second direction [fig. 13].
Claims 3 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Murakami, US20220271378A1, and Masatoshi, US20210359461A1 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Rosskamp, US20100221594A1.
Regarding claim 3, Murakami teaches the cordless device according to claim 1.
Murakami does not teach further comprising: at least a guiding web of a third type, different than the guiding web of the first type and/or the guiding web of the second type, wherein the guiding web of the third type is configured for extending into at least one of the guiding grooves of the battery pack on the same circumferential side of the battery pack,
wherein at least one of: (i) the guiding web of the third type is narrower along the first direction that the guiding web of the first type, (ii) the guiding web of the third type is longer along the second direction that the guiding web of the first type, or (iii) the guiding web of the third type projects further forward along the second direction towards the battery pack than the guiding web of the first type.
Rosskamp teaches a cordless device (hand tool)[0001] comprising a battery pack (1)[fig. 1] and a battery bay (30)[fig. 3] comprising a first (guide rib (35)), second (guide ribs (35) opposite the first)[fig. 3], and third guiding web (ribs (not shown) that correspond to battery groove (29))[fig. 1][fig. 2] wherein the guiding web of the third type is configured for extending into at least one of the guiding grooves of the battery pack on the same circumferential side of the battery pack (rib (not shown) corresponds to groove (29)).
Neither Rosskamp nor Murakami teach a first, second, and third type of guiding web wherein at least one of: (i) the guiding web of the third type is narrower along the first direction that the guiding web of the first type, (ii) the guiding web of the third type is longer along the second direction that the guiding web of the first type, or (iii) the guiding web of the third type projects further forward along the second direction towards the battery pack than the guiding web of the first type.
However, both Rosskamp [0037][0038] and Murakami [0004][0006] teach having a plurality of guiding webs wherein the shapes and positioning of the guiding webs is designed to prevent misalignment or improper seating of the battery pack within the battery mount. Then, the positioning and shapes of the ribs are considered to be result effective variables for impacting the reliability of the battery connection.
Then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed limitations for the size relationships between the third and first guiding web as a matter of routine optimization
Regarding claim 4, combined Murakami teaches the cordless device according to claim 3,
Further, Murakami teaches wherein at least one of:
(i) the cordless device comprises two guiding webs of the first type, wherein the two guiding webs of the first type are configured for touching the battery pack in two guiding grooves of the battery pack on opposite circumferential sides of the battery pack (ribs (110)(114))[fig. 13],
Regarding claim 5, combined Murakami teaches the cordless device according to claim 4,
Further, Murakami teaches wherein the guiding webs of the first type (110) and the guiding webs of the second type (112) lie substantially opposite one another along the second direction (across from one another on opposite sides of the mount (100))[fig. 13]
Regarding claim 6, combined Murakami teaches the cordless device according to claim 3,
Further, Rosskamp teaches wherein the guiding web of the first type, the guiding web of the second type, and the guiding web of the third type are offset along the first direction (ribs on opposite sides are offset)[fig .7], and
wherein at least one of: the guiding web of the first type or the guiding web of the third type, are located between at least two guiding webs of the second type along the first direction (ribs (35) with a smaller distance between one another on the same side are disposed between the ribs (35) on the other side)[fig. 7].
Regarding claim 7, combined Murakami teaches the cordless device according to claim 3,
Further, Murakami teaches wherein at least one of: (i) the battery bay is configured for receiving the battery pack along a third direction (up and down)[fig. 13], wherein the guiding web of the first type, the guiding web of the second type, and the guiding web of the third type are in a plane orthogonal to the third direction [fig. 13]
Regarding claim 8, combined Murakami teaches the cordless device according to claim 3,
Further, Murakami teaches wherein the guiding web of the first type, the guiding web of the second type, and the guiding web of the third type, are in a region of a receiving end of the battery bay (ribs (110)(112) formed in mounting area (100))[fig. 13],
wherein the cordless device comprises at least one electrical device contact for electrical contacting of at least one electrical pack contact of the battery pack (terminal holder (120))[fig. 13], and
wherein the one electrical device contact is in the region of the receiving end on an end side of the battery bay (terminal holder (120) in mounting area (100))[fig. 13].
Regarding claim 9, combined Murakami teaches the cordless device according to claim 3,
Further, Murakami teaches further comprising: at least one electrical device contact for electrical contacting of at least one electrical pack contact of the battery pack terminal holder (120))[fig. 13],
wherein the guiding web of the first type and the guiding web of the second type are configured for positioning to carry out the contacting (ribs guide contact)[0110][0112].
Regarding claim 10, combined Murakami teaches the cordless device according to claim 9,
Further, Murakami teaches wherein the guiding web of the first type, the guiding web of the second type and the guiding web of the third type, are configured as one piece with one another in one component, wherein the one electrical device contact is arranged on the component (ribs (112)(110) formed on charger mounting area (100) with terminal holder (120))[fig. 13]
Regarding claim 11, combined Murakami teaches the cordless device according to claim 3,
Further, Rosskamp teaches wherein the guiding web of the first type and/or the guiding web of the third type is/are configured asymmetrically arranged, for avoiding misaligned reception of the battery pack in the battery bay (ribs on opposite sides are offset)[fig .7], and
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Murakami, US20220271378A1, and Hara, US20160190524A1.
Regarding claim 16, Murakami teaches a cordless device (battery pack (2))[fig. 2], comprising:
a battery bay, wherein the battery bay is configured for exchangeable reception of a battery pack (battery charger (100))[fig. 13];
at least a guiding web of a first type (guide rib (110))[fig .13], wherein the guiding web of the first type is configured for touching the battery pack in at least one guiding groove of the battery pack on at least one circumferential side of the battery pack for guided positioning of the battery pack in a first direction in the battery bay (guiding groove (34) guides battery pack in a vertical direction ie. up/down)[fig. 2][fig. 13 and 15]; and
at least a guiding web of a second type (guide rib (112))[fig. 13], different than the guiding web of the first type (different sizes)[fig. 13], wherein the guiding web of the second type is configured for touching the battery pack on at least one circumferential surface of the battery pack on at least the same circumferential side of the battery pack for guided positioning of the battery pack in a second direction (having second guide prevents movement in a front to rear direction)[fig. 13], different from the first direction (up and down)[fig. 13], in the battery bay (mount (100))[fig. 13]
wherein the guiding web of the first type is longer along the second direction than the guiding web of the second type (rib (110) is larger than rib (112) in all three directions)[fig .13].
Murakami does not teach at least a guiding web of a third type, different than the guiding web of the first type and/or the guiding web of the second type, wherein the guiding web of the third type is configured for extending into at least one of the guiding grooves of the battery pack on the same circumferential side of the battery pack
wherein the guiding web of the third type is longer along the second direction than the guiding web of the first type
wherein the guiding web of the first type, the guiding web of the second type and the guiding web of the third type are arranged on a same inner circumferential side of the battery
Hara teaches a cordless device (20) comprising a battery bay (mounting portion (44) configured for exchangeable reception of a battery pack (1)[0003][fig. 6 - 7] comprising a guiding web of a first, second, and third type (hook pieces (61) not limited to two and having discrimination projections of different sizes)[0046][0047][0072]
at least a guiding web of a third type, different than the guiding web of the first type and/or the guiding web of the second type, wherein the guiding web of the third type is configured for extending into at least one of the guiding grooves of the battery pack on the same circumferential side of the battery pack (hooks configured to be inserted into recesses)[0072]
wherein the guiding web of the third type is longer along the second direction than the guiding web of the first type (hooks having different sized discrimination projections)[0046][0047][0072]
wherein the guiding web of the first type, the guiding web of the second type and the guiding web of the third type are arranged on a same inner circumferential side of the battery (number of hooks greater than two)[0048].
Further, Hara teaches that the battery bay comprising the guiding webs of the first, second, and third type configured as such improved safety and a simplified construction [0116]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the third guiding web type as detailed above taught in Hara into the battery bay of Murakami to improve safety and simplify construction.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Murakami, US20220271378A1, and Kolb, US20200358070A1.
Regarding claim 17, Murakami teaches cordless device (battery pack (2))[fig. 2], comprising:
a battery bay, wherein the battery bay is configured for exchangeable reception of a battery pack (battery charger (100))[fig. 13];
at least a guiding web of a first type (guide rib (110))[fig .13], wherein the guiding web of the first type is configured for touching the battery pack in at least one guiding groove of the battery pack on at least one circumferential side of the battery pack for guided positioning of the battery pack in a first direction in the battery bay (guiding groove (34) guides battery pack in a vertical direction ie. up/down)[fig. 2][fig. 13 and 15]; and
at least a guiding web of a second type (guide rib (112))[fig. 13], different than the guiding web of the first type (different sizes)[fig. 13], wherein the guiding web of the second type is configured for touching the battery pack on at least one circumferential surface of the battery pack on at least the same circumferential side of the battery pack for guided positioning of the battery pack in a second direction (having second guide prevents movement in a front to rear direction)[fig. 13], different from the first direction (up and down)[fig. 13], in the battery bay (mount (100))[fig. 13]
Murakami does not teach wherein the cordless device is configured for a maximum electrical power of a minimum of 1kW and/or a maximum of 10 kW and/or a rated voltage of a minimum of 10 V and/or a maximum of 100 V.
Kolb teaches a cordless device comprises battery within an exchangeable battery bay [0001][fig. 3] wherein the cordless device is configured for a maximum electrical power of a minimum of 1kW and/or a maximum of 10 kW and/or a rated voltage of a minimum of 10 V and/or a maximum of 100 V [0009]. Further, Kolb teaches that this power rating is sufficient for operating the cordless device [0009][0029][0088]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the power rating of Kolb into the battery of the cordless device of Murakami to provide the power necessary to operate the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724