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 .
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji et al. (US 2010/0214055 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2007/0217390 A1) and Watson et al. (US 2001/0000945 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fuji discloses a battery pack (e.g. Fig. 1: 8 & Fig. 11: Vdc & [0173]) comprising: a housing (inherently disclosed); a battery terminal (e.g. Fig. 1: 8 & Fig. 11: Vdc—connection between the battery and the circuitry); an electrical circuit (e.g. Fig. 11: Ry1, Ry2) selectively connecting the battery to the battery terminal to supply a current to an electrical device (e.g. Fig. 11: 61 & M), the circuit including a resistor (e.g. Fig. 11: R2) in a first electrical path between the plurality of cells and the battery terminal, the resistor having a first resistance, and a switch (e.g. Fig. 11: Ry1) in a second electrical path between the plurality of cells and the battery terminal, the switch having a second resistance less than the first resistance (e.g. Fig. 11: since the second path is only wire, it inherently discloses a second resistance that is less than the resistance of the resistor); and a controller (e.g. Fig. 11: 62) operable to selectively connect the plurality of cells to the battery terminal across the resistor or through the switch (e.g. [0006-0009]).
Fuji fails to explicitly disclose, but Johnson teaches a battery pack (e.g. Fig. 21: 30) comprising: a housing (Fig. 1); a plurality of cells supported by the housing and having a voltage (e.g. Fig. 21: 46a-46e); and a battery terminal (e.g. Fig. 21: 98, 102).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Fuji with the teachings of Johnson to implement a battery pack with a plurality of battery cells, since it is no more than simple substitutions of one known element with another according to KSR, and the modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Fuji and Johnson in combination fails to disclose, but Watson teaches battery pack has a volume between 945,000 mm3 and 1,534,500 mm3 (e.g. [0046-0048]: battery pack 16, 22 has length of approximately 115mm, width of approximately 95mm and height of approximately 95mm, which equal to 1,037,875 mm3).
Fuji and/or Johnson fails to teach the claimed battery pack volume, but Watson teaches a battery pack with claimed volume to be used with known in the art cordless power tools.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Fuji and Johnson with the battery pack dimension as taught by Watson. It is merely simple substitutions of one known battery pack with another (e.g. replacing battery pack of power tool of Johnson with battery pack of Watson) since battery pack for power tool and the claimed battery pack dimension are known in the art. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Fuji discloses the controller is operable to control the switch to short the resistor (e.g. [0006-0009]).
Regarding claim 3, Fuji discloses controlling the switch to short the resistor includes closing the switch (e.g. [0006-0009]).
Regarding claim 4, Fuji discloses the controller is operable to control the switch (e.g. Fig. 11: Ry1) after a condition occurs (e.g. [0006-009]: Ry1 is closed—after Ry1 is opened and Ry2 is closed and capacitor C is charged).
Regarding claim 5, Fuji discloses the controller is operable to control the switch after a time period has elapsed (e.g. [0006-009]: Ry1 is closed—after Ry1 is opened and Ry2 is closed and capacitor C is charged; the time for charging the capacitor C is equivalent to the recited time period).
Regarding claim 6, Fuji discloses the controller is operable to control the switch after a time period (e.g. [0006-009]: Ry1 is closed—after Ry1 is opened and Ry2 is closed and capacitor C is charged; the time for charging the capacitor C is equivalent to the recited time period) after start-up (e.g. [0007]: occurs at startup of the motor M).
Regarding claim 22, Watson teaches the battery pack has a length of approximately 115mm (e.g. [0055]), which is about the same as the claimed length between 140 mm and 155 mm.
According to paragraphs [0236] – [0243] of specification of instant application, other than the claimed dimension, the battery pack could have different ranges for length, width or height. It appears the suggested ranges for the length, width and height of the battery pack would have been an obvious matter of design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that the specific ranges as claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. And, the dimensions as taught by Watson is approximately the same as the claimed dimensions. In addition, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, and/or optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, Watson teaches the battery pack has a length of approximately 95mm, which is about the same as the claimed width between 75 mm and 90 mm.
According to paragraphs [0236] – [0243] of specification of instant application, other than the claimed dimension, the battery pack could have different ranges for length, width or height. It appears the suggested ranges for the length, width and height of the battery pack would have been an obvious matter of design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that the specific ranges as claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. And, the dimensions as taught by Watson is approximately the same as the claimed dimensions. In addition, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, and/or optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24, Watson teaches the battery pack has a height of 90 mm to 110 mm (e.g. [0048]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji et al. (US 2010/0214055 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2007/0217390 A1) and Watson et al. (US 2001/0000945 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Omae et al. (US 2012/0313467 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Fuji fails to explicitly disclose the switch includes a field effect transistor (FET). However, Omae teaches the switch includes a field effect transistor (FET) (Fig. 1: 18-19 & [0027]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have replace the relay of Fuji with the relay of Omae (relay includes MOSFET), since it is mere simple substitutions of one known element with another according to KSR, and the modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji et al. (US 2010/0214055 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2007/0217390 A1) and Watson et al. (US 2001/0000945 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2008/0034532 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Fuji and Johnson in combination fails to disclose, but Yang teaches the first electrical path includes a temperature dependent resistor connected in series with the resistor (e.g. Fig. 1: 101 & [0021, 0026]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Fuji with the teachings of Yang to include a temperature dependent resistor connected in series with a resistor to limit or maintain rated current output, since it is no more than simple substitutions of one known element with another (i.e. replace current limit elements of Fuji with current limit elements of Yang) according to KSR. Since both Fuji and Yang are intended to limit or maintain current output, the modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Yang teaches a third resistance of the temperature dependent resistor increases when the temperature of the temperature dependent resistor increases (e.g. [0026]: inherent features of PTC).
Regarding claim 18, Yang teaches the temperature dependent resistor is a positive thermal coefficient (PTC) element (e.g. [0026]).
Regarding claim 19, Yang teaches the temperature dependent resistor is a first temperature dependent resistor and the first electrical path includes a second temperature dependent resistor connected in parallel with the first temperature dependent resistor (e.g. [0026]: any combination of resistance device, PTC, and inductive device connected in series, parallel or series-parallel).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji et al. (US 2010/0214055 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2007/0217390 A1) and Watson et al. (US 2001/0000945 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0127339 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Fuji and Johnson in combination fails to disclose, but Nakano teaches a circuit board including the electrical circuit such that the resistor, the temperature dependent resistor, and the switch are mounted to the circuit board (e.g. [0043] & Figs. 6, 8 and 12).
Fuji silent on how the electronic elements are connected together, but Nakano teaches the use of circuit board to connect all the electronic elements. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Fuji with the teachings of Nakano to mount electronic elements of a battery pack on a circuit board since it is no more than simple substitutions of one known element with another (i.e. replacing the connection method of Fuji with teachings of Nakano) according to KSR.
Regarding claim 21, Nakano teaches the battery terminal is mounted to the circuit board (e.g. [0043] & Figs. 6, 8 and 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 16-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights