DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the December 29th, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted December 30th, 2025 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on December 29th, 2025:
Claims 11, 13, 16-19, and 21-26 are pending in the current application. Claims 11, 17, and 21 have been amended. Claims 22-26 are newly added. Claims 1-10, 12, 14-15, and 20 have been cancelled.
The previous rejections under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on December 29th, 2025 with respect to Claims 11, 13, 16-19, and 21-26 are acknowledged, however, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the objection to Claims 12-21 has been overcome by cancelling Claim 12 is not persuasive.
As explained in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on October 1st, 2025 (“Non-Final Rejection”) the grammar/punctuation error of omitting a comma to separate the preamble and the basis of the claim occurs in Claims 13-21, in addition to Claim 12. The cancelling of Claim 12 without any amendment to the subsequent claims does not overcome the objection. A more detailed objection has been made below to reflect the newly added Claims 22-26.
Any changes to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 16-19, and 21-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 13, 16-19, and 21-26 are objected on the basis of improper grammar, punctuation, and/or syntax. The claims fail to include a comma following the preamble of the claim. The claims should read as follows (with emphasis):
Claim 13: “The rechargeable battery pack as recited in claim 11, wherein …”
Claim 16: “The rechargeable battery pack as recited in claim 11, wherein …”
Claim 17: “The rechargeable battery pack as recited in claim 16, wherein …”
Claim 18: “The rechargeable battery pack as recited in claim 11, wherein …”
Claim 19: “The rechargeable battery pack as recited in claim 11, wherein …”
Claim 21: “The rechargeable battery pack as recited in claim 11, wherein …”
Claim 22: “The rechargeable battery pack as recited in claim 11, wherein …”
Claim 23: “The rechargeable battery pack as recited in claim 16, wherein …”
Claim 24: “The rechargeable battery pack as recited in claim 11, wherein …”
Claim 25: “The rechargeable battery pack as recited in claim 11, wherein …”
Claim 26: “The rechargeable battery pack as recited in claim 11, wherein …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim 25 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 25, lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the spring element.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is wholly unclear as to whether this “spring element” is in reference to the “spring” as defined in line 12 of Claim 11 (from which Claim 25 depends) or is an entirely separate entity.
Further clarification is required.
Prior Art
Previously cited Yebka US PG Publication 2014/0160655 (“Yebka”)
Evans US PG Publication 2018/0233834 (“Evans”)
Hino US PG Publication 2018/0373057 (“Hino”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 11, 13, 16-19, 21, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yebka US PG Publication 2014/0160655.
Regarding Claim 11, Yebka discloses a rechargeable battery pack 220 (Fig. 2, [0025], [0075]) designed to be detachably received in a receiving bay 250 (i.e. battery bay) (Fig. 2, [0026]) of an electric handheld power tool ([0039]) (which meets the claim limitation of an electric handheld power tool or a charging station), the rechargeable battery pack 220 comprising:
a housing 212 (i.e. chassis) having a mechanical interface 280/682 (i.e. cover assembly), the rechargeable battery pack 220 receivable in the receiving bay 250 via the mechanical interface (i.e. when the receptable cover is popped off or otherwise unseated) (Figs. 2 and 6, [0027]-[0029], [0052]),
at least one rechargeable battery cell arranged within the housing 212 (i.e. chassis) of the rechargeable battery pack 220 (Fig. 2, [0025]-[0026]); and
a mechanical lock (i.e. mechanism comprising a member selected from a group consisting of a bolt, a screw, a lever, a knob, a button, and a latch) (Fig. 6, [0027], [0032]-[0036], [0051]-[0053]) arranged at the mechanical interface 280/682 ([0032]-[0036], [0052]) and having a release position (by releasing a cover into the unseated state) and a locked position (i.e. stabilized in the seated state) ([0028], [0032]-[0034], [0051]-[0053]).
While Yebka does not explicitly disclose that the mechanical lock is capable of being tripped by an increase in volume (i.e. swelling) of the rechargeable battery cell 220, Yebka does disclose that it is beneficial for the assembly to comprise a release mechanism that is actuatable by an increase in battery volume of a battery disposed in the battery bay to release the cover from its seated stated in order to stabilized the battery in the battery bay ([0032]-[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery pack of Yebka such that the mechanical lock is capable of being tripped by an increase in volume of the rechargeable battery cell in order to stabilize the battery cell within the receiving bay, as taught by Yebka.
While Yebka discloses wherein the mechanical lock has a bolt ([0034]), Yebka fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bolt is preloaded into the release position by a spring, the preloading of the spring being overcomeable by the increase in the volume of the rechargeable battery cell.
However, Yebka discloses wherein it is beneficial for a mechanical lock of the release mechanism to comprise a deformable member 672 that may be a spring defined with respect to spring constant selected based on one or more characteristics of the battery cell, including the volume, in order to facilitate transitioning from a seated state to an unseated state in the instance of battery swelling ([0051]-[0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery pack of Yebka such that the bolt is preloaded into the release position by a spring, the preloading of the spring being defined by a spring constant and overcomeable by the increase in the volume of the rechargeable battery cell in order to facilitate transitioning from a seated state to an unseated state in the instance of battery swelling, as taught by Yebka.
The rechargeable battery pack 220 of Yebka comprises all of the positively recited structural components of the instantly claimed rechargeable battery pack. And, therefore, the rechargeable battery pack 220 of Yebka would be capable of performing the intended use, including the claimed being tripped by an increase in volume of the rechargeable battery cell, the prevention of the rechargeable battery pack from being received in the receiving bay in the locked position, and the bolt being preloaded into the release position by the spring1.
1 The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Regarding Claim 13, Yebka teaches the instantly claimed rechargeable battery pack according to Claim 11, and Yebka discloses wherein the cover assembly 280 comprises a bar 286 with fasteners 287 and 289 (Fig. 2, [0027]).
Regarding Claims 16-17, Yebka teaches the instantly claimed rechargeable battery pack according to Claim 11, and Yebka discloses wherein the mechanical lock has a mechanical indicator 675 (i.e. sensor) ([0054]) wherein the mechanical indicator 675 is in the form of a colored material section (i.e. visual indication) ([0054]).
Regarding Claim 18, Yebka teaches the instantly claimed rechargeable battery pack according to Claim 11. While Yebka does not explicitly disclose a detent designed to prevent manual operation of the mechanical lock into the release position, Yebka does teach that the assembly is designed such that the inside of the battery bay is not intended to be end-user accessible due to the safety concerns of a swollen battery cell – including potential deformities, splits, and breaks ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the rechargeable battery pack of Yebka to comprise a detent designed to prevent manual operation by the end-user of the mechanical lock into the release position to minimize potential safety concerns that would arise with interactions between the end user and swollen battery cells, including deformities, splits, and breaks, as taught by Yebka.
Regarding Claim 19, Yebka teaches the instantly claimed rechargeable battery pack according to Claim 11, and Yebka discloses a latching delay designed, when the battery cell is expanded, to hold the mechanical lock in the release position (unseated) until the rechargeable battery pack is removed from the receiving bay (i.e. the fasteners 287/289 pop the cover off and the user may swap out the assembly for another charged battery) (Fig. 2, [0025]-[0032], [0059]).
Regarding Claim 21, Yebka teaches the instantly claimed rechargeable battery pack according to Claim 11, and Yebka discloses wherein the rechargeable battery cell 220 is designed as a pouch cell ([0018], [0076]).
Regarding Claim 24, Yebka teaches the instantly claimed rechargeable battery pack according to Claim 11, and Yebka discloses wherein there is at least one rechargeable battery cell (which encompasses the claimed range of exactly five pouch cells)2 ([0025]-[0026], [0043], [0047]).
2 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 25, Yebka teaches the instantly claimed rechargeable battery pack according to Claim 11, and Yebka discloses wherein the spring and the bolt can be arranged on top of the at least one rechargeable battery cell 220 when the mechanical lock is in the release position ([0034], [0052]-[0055]).
Regarding Claim 26, Yebka teaches the instantly claimed rechargeable battery pack according to Claim 11, and Yebka discloses wherein the mechanical interface 280/682 is at least partially blocked by the bolt when the mechanical lock is in the locked position (Fig. 6, [0052]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yebka US PG Publication 2014/0160655, as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Evans US PG Publication 2018/0233834.
Regarding Claim 22, Yebka teaches the instantly claimed rechargeable battery pack according to Claim 11.
While Yebka discloses a spring ([0053]), Yebka fails to disclose wherein the spring is a leaf spring.
However, Evans discloses a battery cell stack (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Evans teaches that a leaf spring used in conjunction with a bolt allows for the cell stack to be secured while minimizing deflection ([0021], [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the rechargeable battery pack of Yebka such that the spring is a leaf spring in order to allow the cell stack to be secured while minimizing deflection, as taught by Evans.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yebka US PG Publication 2014/0160655, as applied to Claim 16, and further in view of Hino US PG Publication 2018/0373057.
Regarding Claim 23, Yebka teaches the instantly claimed rechargeable battery pack according to Claim 16, and Yebka discloses wherein the mechanical indicator is integrally formed with the bolt ([0054]), and wherein the bolt and mechanical indicator are both elastic ([00367]-[0037], [0051]).
Yebka fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bolt is a plastic of one color and the mechanical indicator is a colored plastic different from the one color.
However, Hino discloses a battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Hino teaches that it is beneficial to color materials in mutually different colors depending on the intended use of the material so that the materials can be easily identified ([0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the rechargeable battery pack of Yebka such that the bolt is of one color and the mechanical indicator is a color different from the one color such that the different materials can be easily identified, as taught by Hino.
The skilled artisan would recognize that the elastic material of Yebka in view of Hino is a plastic (Hino [0063]).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights