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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections have been modified to address the new limitations of claim 1. The objection to title remains unsatisfied. Applicant should note MPEP 606.01: If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment.
Applicant asserts that Niziol fails to disclose pads at the distal end of the battery cells. First, this is incorrect. Pad 40 of Niziol directly contacts the distal end of the battery (see Figure 1e). Second, this amendment is not supported by the instant specification and invokes a new USC 112, 1st paragraph rejection. Paragraph 51 of the instant specification discloses that the pads either surround the batteries and buffer the space between the batteries and the housing (as in Figure 14) or are between the distal ends of the batteries (as in Figure 15).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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. Paragraph 51 of the instant specification discloses that the pads either surround the batteries and buffer the space between the batteries and the housing (as in Figure 14) or are between the distal ends of the batteries (as in Figure 15). There is not teaching of an embodiment in which “the flexible pads being positioned directly between the distal ends of the plurality of battery cells and an interior surface of the core housing” as is now required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niziol (US 2021/0057688 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Niziol discloses a battery pack apparatus 10 comprising: a core battery pack 12a/12b, the core battery pack including: a core housing 24,28; a plurality of battery cells 12a, 12b arranged within the core housing (paragraph 102); and a mating interface 50 configured to selectively and electrically couple the core battery pack with an interface of a piece of power equipment or a charger (paragraph 103); and a housing 14 including: a first housing 44 comprising a handle 54, the first housing attached to the core housing (paragraph 104); and a second housing (remainder of housing including elements 15a, 15b, and 42) attached to the core housing and configured to dampen a force experienced by the core battery pack upon an impact (paragraph 103). Niziol discloses that the battery packs are up to 100 Wh (paragraph 5) and that the housing can accommodate any number of packs (paragraph 111). Niziol discloses that the core battery pack 12a/12b comprises a plurality of flexible pads 36,38,40, the flexible pads positioned between the plurality of battery cells and an interior surface of the pack housing 24,28 (paragraph 103 and Figure 1e). Pad 40 of Niziol directly contacts the distal end of the batteries (see Figure 1e).
Regarding claim 2, Niziol discloses that the battery pack weighs less than 30 kg (paragraph 8) which includes less than 25 pounds.
Regarding claim 4, Niziol discloses that the second housing includes a first bumper and second bumper (left and right case enclosures shown in Figure 1e), the first bumper comprising a first shell 15a and first insert 54a and the second bumper comprising a second shell 15b and a second insert 54b (paragraphs 102 & 104).
Regarding claim 5, Niziol discloses that the first insert 54a is positioned between the first shell 15a and the core battery pack 12a/12b and the second insert 54b is positioned between the second shell 15b and the core battery pack 12a/12b (see Fig. 1d & 1e).
Regarding claim 9, Niziol discloses the core battery pack 12a/12b comprises a plurality of spacers 54a,54b in the housing, the plurality of spacers 54a,54b separating a first face 15a and a second face 15b of the housing (see Figure 1e) to provide additional space above and below the plurality of battery cells, and wherein the plurality of spacers 54a,54b are positioned within apertures of the housing (see Figure 1d).
Regarding claim 10, Niziol discloses that the battery pack 10 comprises a plurality of fasteners 53a,53b positioned within the apertures, wherein the plurality of spacers 54a,54b and the plurality of fasteners 53a,53b have different longitudinal axes to offset the plurality of fasteners, and wherein the second housing includes a first bumper module 38 and a second bumper module 40 and the first bumper module and the second bumper module dampen impacts due to freedom of movement provided by the offsetting of the plurality of fasteners (paragraphs 103 & 104).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niziol as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jones (US 2009/0000835 A1).
Niziol does not disclose the use a trigger system for its handle. Jones—in an invention for a battery pack with handle for sliding into place—discloses the use of a spring element for locking the handle into position when the battery is engaged (paragraph 55) and that the handle can pivot when it is not (paragraph 52) so as to retain the battery detachably (paragraph 10) and rapidly (paragraph 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a spring-lock mechanism to the handle of Niziol to allow for rapid removal and secure installation as suggested by Jones.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights