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 .
Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed on August 20, 2025. Claims 1-11 are pending, with claims 1, 8 and 10 being amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 12, “adapted” should be replaced with --adapter-- in order to be consistent with “adapter base” used throughout claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first limit block” & “the second limit block” in line 4, and “the first button” & “the second button” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mergener et al (US 2016/0311094 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 2018/0277804 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mergener et al teaches: A connection structure of an adapter base (600, fig. 1) and a mobile power supply (400, fig. 1), comprising: the mobile power supply (battery pack 400), wherein a first power output interface (424, fig. 6, paras. 0066, 0068) is arranged in the mobile power supply; and the adapter base (adapter 600), wherein the mobile power supply is half-wrapped in the adapter base (as shown in figs. 1 and 20, when combined, the adapter 600 covers at least a portion of the top surface and two side surfaces of the battery pack 400), and the mobile power supply is detachably connected to the adapter base (the adapter 600 and battery pack 400 can be coupled and un-coupled); an electrical connection terminal (battery side connector 624, fig. 10 and para. 0087) and a second power output interface (tool side connector 622, including contacts 628a-e, fig. 9 and para. 0082) are arranged on the adapter base; the electrical connection terminal is detachably connected to the first power output interface (see para. 0088), and the second power output interface (tool side connector 622) is configured to be adapted to an electrical terminal (terminal assembly 250, fig. 4 and para. 0045) of a power tool (200, fig. 4).
Mergener et al does not specifically teach wherein the mobile power supply comprises a first universal serial bus (USB) interface, and wherein, when the mobile power supply is connected to the adapter base, the first USB interface is not blocked by the adapter base.
Lee et al teaches a mobile power supply (battery pack 20) that comprises a first USB interface (26) (see figs. 1, 3 and para. 0031, 0032, 0036 and 0037). Lee et al shows that the first USB interface (26) is on an angled exposed surface of the mobile power supply (see figs. 1 and 3), which is at an opposite end of the mobile power supply than the physical interface (24) for connection to a tool or battery charger. Lee et al also that the USB interface (26) is configured to charge the mobile power supply (see fig. 3 and para. 0036).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art prior to the effective filing date, to modify the mobile power supply of Mergener et al, to include a first universal serial bus (USB) interface, and wherein, when the mobile power supply is connected to the adapter base, the first USB interface is not blocked by the adapter base, in order to allow charging of the mobile power supply without the need for a dedicated charger that is compatible with the mobile power supply (see para. 0036 of Lee et al) and to allow the portable power supply to be used to charge external devices (see para. 0037 of Lee et al). Upon combining the first USB interface, as taught by Lee et al, with the power supply of Mergener et al, the first USB interface would not be blocked by the adapter base when the mobile power supply is connected to the adapter base. Note that both Mergener et al and Lee show an exposed angled surface of the mobile power supply (see surface 425, in fig. 5 of Mergener et al and the exposed angled surface including USB (26) in fig. 1 of Lee et al). The adapter base (600) of Mergener et al does not block this exposed surface.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al, as applied to claim 1 have been discussed above. Mergener et al also teaches: wherein the adapter base is provided with an outer surface (see fig. 10), a mounting groove (cavity 640, fig. 10, and para. 0087) is formed in the outer surface, and the mobile power supply is detachably installed in the mounting groove (see figs. 1, 20 and paras. 0087-0088).
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al, as applied to claim 2 have been discussed above. Mergener et al also teaches: wherein the adapter base further comprises a side wall (the surface of the adapter shown towards the bottom of figure 10) adjacent to the outer surface, and the mounting groove penetrates through the side wall (the cavity 640 is open at the surface of the adapter towards the bottom of fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, the teachings of Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al, as applied to claim 1 have been discussed above. Mergener et al also teaches: wherein the power tool (200, fig. 4) is provided with a limit groove (notches 207, fig. 4 and para. 0042) adapted to at least one of a first limit block (a first tab 632) and a second limit block (a second tab 632)(see figs. 9, 14 and para. 0085); the limit block is movably arranged in the limit groove (tabs 632 fit within notches 207), and the at least one of the first limit block and the second limit block can be is separated from the limit groove by pressing at least one of a first button (a first actuator 634) and a second button (a second actuator 634) (actuators 634 are pressed to retract tabs 632 and allow separation, para. 0085).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mergener et al (US 2016/0311094 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 2018/0277804 A1) and Liang et al (US 2020/0106064 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al teaches: The connection structure of the adapter base and the mobile power supply according to claims 2 and 3, respectively, as discussed above, wherein the mobile power supply is arranged in a generally rectangular shape.
Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al does specifically show the mobile power supply arranged as a cuboid, and the mobile power supply comprises two main surfaces arranged in parallel and four side surfaces.
Liang et al teaches a connection structure of an adapter base (base 3) and a mobile power supply (battery) arranged as a cuboid (see the shape of upper housing 1 and lower housing 2, in figs. 1-4), and the mobile power supply comprises two main surfaces arranged in parallel and four side surfaces (see the surfaces shown in figs. 1-4 and paras. 0019-0020).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art prior to the effective filing date, to modify the shape of the mobile power supply in Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al to be arranged as a cuboid, and the mobile power supply comprises two main surfaces arranged in parallel and four side surfaces, as taught by Liang et al. One reason for doing so would be to provide a mobile power supply with a shape that is easily and efficiently stacked for storage.
Regarding claim 5, Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al and Liang et al teaches: The connection structure of the adapter base and the mobile power supply according to claim 4, wherein when the mobile power supply is installed in the mounting groove, a first main surface of the two main surfaces and at least one of the four side surfaces of the mobile power supply are exposed outside the adapter base (see figs. 1 and 20 of Mergener et al and fig. 1 of Liang et al. a first main surface (such as a bottom surface) and at least one of the four sides (such as a rear side) will be exposed outside of the adapter base when coupled).
Regarding claim 6, Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al and Liang et al teaches: The connection structure of the adapter base and the mobile power supply according to claim 5, wherein relative to the first main surface (such as the bottom surface) exposed outside the adapter base, a second main surface of the two main surfaces abuts against the adapter base (as shown in figs. 1 and 20 of Mergener et al and fig. 1 of Liang et al. a second main surface (such as the top surface) of the mobile power supply will abut against the adapter base when coupled).
Regarding claim 7, Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al teaches: The connection structure of the adapter base and the mobile power supply according to claim 2, as discussed above. Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al does not specifically teach wherein the mounting groove comprises two inner side surfaces arranged in parallel, and a lock block is arranged on each of the two inner side surfaces; a guide groove and a lock groove are formed in each of two parallel side surfaces of the mobile power supply, wherein the guide groove is communicated with the lock groove, and the lock block is detachably arranged in the lock groove.
The teachings of Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al and Liang et al have been discussed above. Liang et al further teaches a connection structure of the adapter base (base 3) and the mobile power supply (battery), wherein the base includes a mounting groove (a cavity in the mounting portion 35, see figs. 5 and 6) and the mounting groove comprises two inner side surfaces (sliding rails 36, 37, 360, 370) arranged in parallel, and a lock block (stoppers, see para. 0023) is arranged on each of the two inner side surfaces; a guide groove (22, 23, 222, 232, figs. 3 and 4) and a lock groove (22, 23, 222, 223, figs. 3 and 4) are formed in each of two parallel side surfaces of the mobile power supply, wherein the guide groove is communicated with the lock groove, and the lock block is detachably arranged in the lock groove (when coupled, see fig. 1 and paras. 0020-0023).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art prior to the effective filing date, to modify the grooves in Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al to include the groove structure, as taught by Liang et al, in order to provide a secure mounting of the cuboid shaped mobile power supply to the adapter base.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mergener et al (US 2016/0311094 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 2018/0277804 A1) and Huang (CN 204497813 U).
Regarding claim 8, Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al teaches: The connection structure of the adapter base and the mobile power supply according to claim 1, as discussed above. Lee et al also teaches that the USB interface (26) is configured to charge the mobile power supply (see fig. 3 and para. 0036) and is also configured to supply power to 3C electronic products (see para. 0037).
Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al does not specifically teach, wherein a second USB interface is arranged in the mobile power supply; and the second USB interface is configured to supply power to 3C electronic products.
Huang teaches a mobile power supply (battery pack, with housing 1, see figs. 3 and 4), wherein a first universal serial bus (USB) interface (USB output interface 4) and a second USB interface (“the second output interface 4 is more than one.” And “Preferably, the output interface 4 comprises one or more of USB interface, … and Micro USB interface.”, see the third paragraph of the “Preferred Embodiment” in the attached translation) are arranged in the mobile power supply (see figs. 3 and 4); the first USB interface and the second USB interface are configured to supply power to 3C electronic products (the USB standard is configured to supply power to 3C electronic products, also see the third paragraph of the “invention contents” in the attached translation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art prior to the effective filing date, to modify the mobile power supply in Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al to include wherein a second USB interface is arranged in the mobile power supply; and the second USB interface is configured to supply power to 3C electronic products, as taught by Liang et al, in order to allow the mobile power supply to be used to charge multiple other electronic devices when not being used in a power tool.
Regarding claim 9, Mergener et al as modified by Lee et al and Huang teaches the connection structure of the adapter base and the mobile power supply according to claim 8, as discussed above. Mergener et al also teaches wherein a third USB interface (612) is arranged in the adapter base (see fig. 11).
Mergener et al as modified by Huang and Lee does not specifically teach that an output power of the third USB interface is greater than an output power of the first USB interface and the second USB interface.
However, prior to the effective filing date, it was old and well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that there are multiple USB standards, which provide varying levels of power. For example, the USB4 standard is known to operate at a higher level of power than the USB1.x-USB3.x standards. Different interfaces are also known to be used with the different USB standards, for example, USB-A interfaces are used for the early USB1.x standards and a USB-C interface is used for the later USB4 standard.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art prior to the effective filing date, to modify the third USB interface in Mergener et al to include an output power of the third USB interface is greater than an output power of the first USB interface and the second USB interface, since this would allow faster charging. The respective output power levels of the claimed USB interfaces would represent selecting from the known options, for the desired performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 20, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The anticipation rejection of claims 1-3 and 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the response, filed August 20, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Mergener et al (US 2016/0311094 A1) and Lee et al (US 2018/0277804 A1), as presented above.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 8-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument for claim 2, that Mergener’s cavity 640 is not formed in an outer surface of the adapter base, fig. 10 of Mergener shows that the cavity 640 is formed in a lower or bottom surface and extends to an end surface (towards the bottom of the fig.) of the adapter base. The lower surface and the end surface are both considered an outer surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
996
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to applicant’s argument for claim 3, that Mergener’s figures do not show or describe the cavity 640 as penetrating a side wall and that the opening shown in figure 10 is bounded on all four sides, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s attention is drawn to fig. 8 of Mergener, which shows the adapter 600 in an upright orientation, where an opening of the cavity 640 is shown to penetrate a side wall of the adapter housing 604 at the battery receiving side portion 608 (see para. 0080).
PNG
media_image2.png
854
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to applicant’s argument for claim 10, that Mergener does not teach the limit block as a distinct component fixed to a button, nor does it provide reciprocal engagement in defined limit grooves, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 9 of Mergener shows first and second limit blocks in the form of tabs 632. As shown in fig. 14, the tabs 632 are fixed to a button 634. As explained in para. 0085, the tabs 632 engage limit grooves (notches 207 in receiving portion 206 of power tool 200, also see fig. 4).
With respect to applicant’s argument for claim 10, that there is no disclosure of how the actuators return to the locked state, no mention of spring-based restoring force and no structural description of how the tab’s motion relates to the button press, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, applicant’s attention is drawn to figs. 4, 9 and 14 and para. 0085 of Mergener. Para. 0085 specifically states that the tabs are normally biased away from each other by springs inside the housing. Springs are also shown towards the top of fig. 14, adjacent to the actuators 634.
PNG
media_image3.png
194
1116
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1142
516
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
778
732
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
1030
680
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument with respect to claims 4-7 and 11 are essentially that these claims are allowable based on their dependency from claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, a prior art rejection of claim 1 has been presented above.
Applicant’s argument for claim 8, that Huang only mentions that the output interface comprises one or more USB interfaces, not interfaces usable for charging the mobile power supply and Lee only teaches a single port, not two interfaces, and in the context of a tool battery charger system, not integrated into a power-tool-compatible battery structure like Mergener’s. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Lee et al teaches a USB interface 26 on power tool battery 20. The USB interface 26 is used to charge the battery and is also used to charge external devices (see fig. 1 and para. 0036 and 0037). Since Lee et al teaches the USB interface on a power tool battery, the USB interface can be integrated with the battery pack 400 of Mergener, which is also a power tool battery. Huang teaches that multiple USB ports may be provided.
As explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, the combination of Mergener et al and Lee et al would result in a USB port that is not blocked by the adapter and remains exposed while the battery is within the adapter.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments for claim 9, Mergener does not disclose multiple USB interfaces or power levels, Lee does not disclose an adapter base with three USB interfaces, where one USB interface in the adapter is designed to output more power than battery-side USB ports, this represents a piecemeal analysis of the prior art. The Examiner believes that the rejection above sets forth a prima facie case of obviousness for these claimed features.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the intended functionality of Mergener would be destroyed by changing the battery to adapter mating interface, since Liang discloses a different sliding rail-based interface and that Mergener’s battery mounts via a snap-in approach, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mergener and Liang both use a sliding type of interface. Furthermore, prior to the effective filing date, it was well known that different power tool brands use different specific interfaces. The redesign of the battery–tool interface to fit a particular application is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Applicant’s argument in regard to claim 8-9 that combining Mergener with Lee and Huang would change the principle operation of Mergener, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mergener et al and Lee et al both teach power tool battery systems. Lee et al teaches that it can be beneficial to include a USB interface on the power tool battery and still allows the power tool battery to be used with a power tool. The inclusion of the USB interface from Lee et al with the power tool battery of Mergener et al would not destroy the intended function of providing power to a power tool and would provide the benefit of allowing charging of the power tool battery with a common USB charger and also allow the power tool battery to charge other devices. Furthermore, Lee et al has already solved any issues relating to redesign of power tool battery circuitry to accommodate the USB interface
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references listed on the attached PTO-892, which teach power tool battery adapters and power supplies with USB interfaces.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jared Fureman whose telephone number is (571)272-2391. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/JARED FUREMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights