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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on two (2) applications filed in the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China on 05/21/2020 and 04/12/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendment of claim(s) 1, 5 and 14; and cancellation of claims 15-20 in Applicant’s Response to Official Action dated 01/05/2026 (“Response”). Claims 1-14 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Based upon Applicant’s amendment of Claims 1 and 14 and cancellation of Claim 15, the Examiner’s prior objection to Claims 1 and 14-15 are withdrawn. However, Claim 10 was also objected and has not been amended, so the prior objection to Claim 10 is maintained, as described in detail below.
Based upon Applicant’s amendment of Claims 1 and 5 to remove the term “preset”, the Examiner’s prior rejection of Claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Claim 10 recites the element numbers “104” and “105”.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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.
The term “satisfies requirements for endurance and heat dissipation” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “satisfies requirements for endurance and heat dissipation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, it appears that this limitation is requiring the satisfaction of certain requirements without clearly expressing exactly what those requirements are. Claims 2-14 each depend, either directly or ultimately, from claim 1 and are, therefore, likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
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.
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(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2018/081397 A1 to Zeiler et al. (hereinafter Zeiler).
Regarding claim 1, Zeiler discloses a power unit (electric powerhead 100) (Abstract; Figs. 1-2, 8-20), removably couplable to a garden or outdoor power execution device (Figs. 10-11; Para. [0036]), comprising:
a housing (housing 115) (Figs. 1-2, 8-10; Paras. [0036], [0038], [0043], [0045]-[0050]) formed with an accommodation space (space accommodating motor and battery) (Figs. 1, 2, 8) wherein the housing (housing 115) (Figs. 1-2, 8-10; Paras. [0036], [0038], [0043], [0045]-[0050]) comprises a connection surface for a connection to at least part of a power supply assembly (one or more batteries 110) (Figs. 1-2, 8-9, 12-18; Paras. [0036], [0045]-[0048], [0052]-[0053], [0057], [0061], [0066], [0068]-[0072]), and the connection surface is configured to obliquely intersect with a plane extending along a front and rear direction (see Annotated Fig. 2 of Zeiler infra);
a motor (electric motor 105) (Figs. 1-2, 8-9, 12; Paras. [0036], [0038], [0045], [0049], [0052]-[0053], [0057]-[0058], [0060], [0061], [0063]-[0065], [0067]-[0070], [0073], [0076]) at least partially disposed in the accommodation space (space accommodating motor and/or batteries) (Figs. 2, 6);
the power supply assembly (one or more batteries 110) (Figs. 1-2, 8-9, 12-18; Paras. [0012], [0036], [0045]-[0048], [0052]-[0053], [0057], [0061], [0066], [0068]-[0072]) for powering the motor (electric motor 105) (Figs. 1-2, 8-9, 12; Paras. [0036], [0038], [0045], [0049], [0052]-[0053], [0057]-[0058], [0060], [0061], [0063]-[0065], [0067]-[0070], [0073], [0076]) and at least partially disposed on the housing (see Figs. 1-2, 8-11, 14-17); and
a control assembly (processing circuit 250) (Figs. 1, 2, 8-9, 12, 18; Paras. [0050], [0052]-[0054], [0058], [0061]-[0063], [0069]-[0070], [0073], [0076]) for controlling the motor (electric motor 105) (Figs. 1-2, 8-9, 12; Paras. [0036], [0038], [0045], [0049], [0052]-[0053], [0057]-[0058], [0060], [0061], [0063]-[0065], [0067]-[0070], [0073], [0076]),
wherein a maximum output power P of the motor (electric motor 105) (Figs. 1-2, 8-9, 12; Paras. [0036], [0038], [0045], [0049], [0052]-[0053], [0057]-[0058], [0060], [0061], [0063]-[0065], [0067]-[0070], [0073], [0076]), under working conditions in which the power unit satisfies requirements for endurance and heat dissipation (it is implied that the invention of Zeiler is meant to work and satisfy requirements for endurance and heat dissipation even), is greater than or equal to 1500 W and less than or equal to 5500 W (Para. [0049]).
However, Zeiler does not expressly disclose that a mass M1 of the power unit is greater than or equal to 8 kg and less than or equal to 14.5 kg when the power supply includes at least one battery pack, and a ratio of the maximum output power P to the mass M1 is higher than or equal to 103.5 W/kg and lower than or equal to 687.5 W/kg. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the power unit with a reasonable expectation of success to have an optimum range of weights (where a lower weight is generally preferable) that would provide an optimum range of power-to-weight ratios (where higher power-to-weight is generally preferential), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Edge of Plane Extending Along a Front and Rear Direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Oblique Angle Between Connection Surface and Plane Extending Along a Front and Rear Direction)][AltContent: textbox (Parallel
Lines)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
617
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Zeiler.
Regarding claim 5, Zeiler teaches the power unit according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Zeiler teaches that the connection surface comprises a first connection surface (connection surface of first battery pack) (see Fig. 16) and a second connection surface (connection surface of second battery pack) (see Fig. 16). However, Zeiler does not expressly disclose or teach that the first connection surface and the second connection surface are further symmetrical about the plane and form a clamping region that intersects with the motor. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 6, Zeiler teaches the power unit according to claim 5 (see above). However, Zeiler does not expressly disclose or teach that the motor is at least partially disposed within the clamping region. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 2-3, 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0111121 to Wu.
Regarding claim 2, Zeiler teaches the power unit according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Zeiler discloses that the power supply comprises a first power supply and a second power supply (Fig. 16; Para. [0012]) the first-type power supply is disposed on the connection surface, and the second-type power supply is disposed at an upper end of the housing (see Fig. 16). However, Zeiler does not expressly disclose that the power supply comprises a first-type power supply and a second-type power supply. Nevertheless, Wu teaches the use of a plurality of batteries having different chemistries with different positive benefits and negative costs (Paras. [0058], [0064]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the power unit using a plurality of batteries as taught in Zeiler to use batteries of different chemistries as taught in Wu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have some cells that are designed to supply high power and charge quickly such as Lithium-ferrite (Para. [0064]) and some that have a high=energy density Lithium-ion cell (Para. [0058]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the power unit using a plurality of batteries as taught in Zeiler to use batteries of different chemistries as taught in Wu with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zeiler in view of Wu teaches the power unit according to claim 2 (see above). Furthermore, the combination of Zeiler and Wu teaches that the first-type power supply and the second-type power supply are perpendicular to each other (see Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zeiler in view of Wu teaches the power unit according to claim 2 (see above). However, neither Zeiler nor Wu expressly discloses or teaches that, in a plane perpendicular to the front and rear direction, a projection of the motor in the plane along the front and rear direction at least partially coincides with a projection of the first-type power supply in the plane along the front and rear direction. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 8, Zeiler teaches the power unit according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Zeiler teaches that the control assembly (processing circuit 250) (Figs. 1, 2, 8-9, 12, 18; Paras. [0050], [0052]-[0054], [0058], [0061]-[0063], [0069]-[0070], [0073], [0076]) comprises a first control board (processing circuit 250) (Figs. 1, 2, 8-9, 12, 18; Paras. [0050], [0052]-[0054], [0058], [0061]-[0063], [0069]-[0070], [0073], [0076]). However, Zeiler does not expressly disclose or teach a second control board, that the first control board is configured to extend substantially in a second plane, or that the second control board is configured to extend substantially in a third plane. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zeiler’s first control board to be split into two control boards to provide redundant control of the batteries, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977). Furthermore, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed relationships between the planes of the first and second control boards appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 9, Zeiler teaches the power unit according to claim 8 (see above). However, Zeiler does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach that the power unit further comprises a first plane extending substantially along a front and rear direction, and at least one of the second plane and the third plane intersects with the first plane. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 10, Zeiler teaches the power unit according to claim 8 (see above). However, Zeiler does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach that the second plane 104 and the third plane 105 are symmetrical about the first plane. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 11, Zeiler teaches the power unit according to claim 8 (see above). However, Zeiler does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach that the first control board and the second control board intersect with each other and are in a "V" shape. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 12, Zeiler teaches the power unit according to claim 11 (see above). Furthermore, Zeiler teaches a power unit wherein the housing comprises a first housing (motor housing 275) (Fig. 8; Para. [0058]) as a base and a second housing (battery receptacle housing 280) (Fig. 8; Para. [0058]) as a main body and the second housing (battery receptacle housing 280) (Fig. 8; Para. [0058]) is disposed on an upper side of the first housing (motor housing 275) (Fig. 8; Para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 13, Zeiler teaches the power unit according to claim 12 (see above). Furthermore, Zeiler teaches a power unit wherein the first housing (motor housing 275) (Fig. 8; Para. [0058]) covers at least part (portion at the interface of motor housing 275 and battery receptacle housing 280) (see Fig. 8) of the second housing (battery receptacle housing 280) (Fig. 8; Para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, Zeiler teaches the power unit according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Zeiler teaches a power unit that has a first center of gravity (G1) (inherent) and the execution device has a second center of gravity (G2) (inherent). However, Zeiler does not expressly disclose that a distance between the first center of gravity (G1) and the second center of gravity (G2) along a direction in which the execution device moves forward is greater than or equal to 0 mm and less than or equal to 335 mm. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0197389 to Ota et al. (hereinafter Ota).
Regarding claim 4, Zeiler teaches the power unit according to claim 1 (see above). However, Zeiler does not expressly disclose or teach that the housing comprises a first-type interface and a second-type interface, the first-type interface is used for a connection to a first-type power supply, and the second-type interface is used for a connection to a second-type power supply. Nevertheless, Ota teaches various types of interfaces for battery packs (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the power unit of Zeiler with the use of two different types of interfaces taught in Ota with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide users with the flexibility to use various configurations of batteries. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the power unit of Zeiler with the use of two different types of interfaces taught in Ota with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
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 CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671