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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on September 11, 2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1-9 withdrawn from consideration as to non-elected inventions. Action on the merits of claims 10-20 follows;
The 102 rejection to Zemlock et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,627,345) set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in light of the amendment. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed September 11, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-20 under Zemlock 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 4, 2025.
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 10-20 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cell positioned in each of the plurality of channels" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 11-17 do not remedy this deficiency and are rejected for the same reasons.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “at least one outer cell” (lines 5-6), and the claim also recites “at least one of the outer cells” (line 14) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 11-17 do not remedy this deficiency and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 10 recites the phrase “only at least one” at line 13 which is contradictory in itself as the terms only and at least used in combination cause friction since only (exactly) one and at least one (can be more than one) are fundamentally different. Only one imposes an upper limit or exclusivity that at least one does not. Therefore reciting only at least one appears to define two conflicting terms together in combination which render the exact nature of the claimed invention unclear. Claims 11-17 do not remedy this deficiency and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "only at least one outer channel of the plurality of outer channels" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the plurality of channels provide no antecedent basis for at least one outer channel. Rather claim 10 previously only defines the plurality of channels including a plurality of inner channels but make no prior mention of at least one outer channel to the plurality of channels as recited in line 13. Claims 11-17 do not remedy this deficiency and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 recites the phrase “the at least one channel” in claim 14 and is now unclear as claim 10 has been amended to recite plural inner channels and at least one outer channel and it is unclear which channel(s) the phrase “the at least one channel” of claim 14 is referring to.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the cell positioned in each of the plurality of channels" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 19-20 do not remedy this deficiency and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 18-20 are indefinite as base claim 18 recites the phrase “only at least one” at lines 13-14 which is contradictory in itself as the terms only and at least used in combination cause friction since only (exactly) one and at least one (can be more than one) are fundamentally different. Only one imposes an upper limit or exclusivity that at least one does not. Therefore reciting only at least one appears to define two conflicting terms together in combination which render the exact nature of the claimed invention unclear. Claims 19-20 do not remedy this deficiency and are rejected for the same reasons.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “at least one outer cell” (line 6), and the claim also recites “at least one of the outer cells” (line 14) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 19-20 do not remedy this deficiency and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "only at least one outer channel of the plurality of outer channels" in line 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the plurality of channels provide no antecedent basis for at least one outer channel. Rather claim 18 previously only defines the plurality of channels including a plurality of inner channels but make no prior mention of at least one outer channel to the plurality of channels as recited in lines 13-14. Claims 19-20 do not remedy this deficiency and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0136956).
As to claim 10, Nakano discloses a battery pack 30 comprising:
a housing 31 (31A/31B) defining a cavity;
a terminal assembly 13/33 coupled to the housing 31;
a plurality of cells 1 configured to electrically connect to the terminal assembly 13/33, each cell extending 1 along a longitudinal axis, the plurality of cells 1 including at least one inner cell and at least one outer cell; and
a cell carrier 70 (71A/71B) coupled to the housing 31 to support the plurality of cells 1 within the cavity, the cell carrier 70 (71A/71B) including a plurality of channels configured to receive the plurality of cells 1, wherein the plurality of channels includes a plurality of inner channels configured with a continuous circumferential wall that surrounds the cell positioned in each of the plurality of inner channels along a length of at least one of the inner cells and
wherein only the outer one or more channels includes an elongate opening exposing a length of a corresponding outer cell(s) 1 contained in the respective at least one outer channel (see Fig. 1 and annotated Figs. 2 and 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
335
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
598
855
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 14, the cell carriers 71A/71B includes circumferential walls surrounding each of the plurality of channels and the elongate opening is formed by a gap in the circumferential wall of the at least one channel (see Fig. 9 above).
As to claim 15, the cell carrier 71A/71B extends between a first side and a second side along a width of the carrier and the elongate opening is positioned at one of the first or second side (Fig. 9).
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.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0136956) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ogura (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0302353) or Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0271899).
Nakano teaches of plural cells in first and second rows and teaches that the configuration and number of cells can be adjusted according to the intended use of the battery operated device and output voltage being used (para. [0070]).
As to claim 12, Nakano teaches of the outer channel adjacent to a side of the cell carrier 71A/71B (Fig. 9).
Nakano does not teach of the first and second row of channels, with one row having more channels than the other (claim 11) or in a log-stack orientation (claim 13).
Again as noted above, Nakano teaches that the battery pack and battery cells within can be adjusted to the intended use of the battery operated device and output voltage being used. Stacking in the manner shown by Nakano was known to result in wasted space between adjacent cylindrical cells.
Providing first and second row of cells wherein one row has more cells than the other and is in a log-stack configuration for power tool battery pack designs has long since been known in the art and would have been of routine skill in the art for at least the following reason(s).
For example, Ogura is drawn to the same field of endeavor, battery pack designs with plural cells contained in a housing for devices such as electric tools (Figs. 1-6 and 18 and abstract). Ogura provided a design wherein first and second adjacent rows of cells are staggered (log-stack orientation, claim 13) and where one row has more cells than the other (Fig. 6). Similarly Johnson disclosed in Fig. 57 of a power tool battery pack having a log-stacked orientation where one row has more cells than the other. Providing a staggered or log-stacked orientation was known in the art to provide a cell array having a more compact arrangement, thereby providing increased energy density.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell orientation of Nakano to have as log-stack orientation such as that taught by Ogura or Johnson since it would have provided a compact cell array design and resulted in a battery pack with increased energy density.
As to one row of cells having a greater number of cells than the other, Nakano teaches that the battery pack and battery cells within can be adjusted to the intended use of the battery operated device and output voltage being used (claim 11).
Ogura and Johnson, each teaches that tool/mower/blower battery packs can include first and second rows of cells of different number. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have routine skill to not only select the log-stack orientation but to further optimize the number of cells in each row as needed (the same or not) in combination with the log-stack orientation of Ogura or Johnson to provide not only a compact, high energy density design as a result of the log-stack arrangement but also optimized the number of cells to provide for good stacking, adjusted to the intended use of the battery operated device and output voltage being used.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of Nakano to have first and second rows of different cell numbers and a log-stack orientation as taught by Ogura or Johnson since it would have provided not only a compact, high energy density design as a result of the log-stack arrangement but also optimized the number of cells to provide for good stacking, adjusted to the intended use of the battery operated device and output voltage being used.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0136956) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0045665) or Nodzykowski et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0135129).
Nakano does not explicitly teach of positioning fins extending from opposite sides of the cell carrier and the housing including positioning groove configured to receive the position fin to inhibit rotation of the cell carrier relative to the housing (claim 16), where the fin is one of a pair of fins on opposite sides of the carrier and the groove is one of a pair of grooves disposed on opposite sides of the cavity (claim 17).
Park is drawn to the same field of endeavor; power tool battery packs support an array of cylindrical cells therein. Park disclosed that it was known in the art to provide fins on opposite sides of a cell carrier along with corresponding grooves provided on the housing to receive the fins. This design provided for good positioning of the carrier in the housing and predictably prevents unwarranted movement of the carrier within the housing enclosure. Similarly, Nodzykowski discloses a cylindrical cell holder with fins 118 and 126 on opposite sides of the cavity to provide proper alignment and securing of the cell carrier in a larger housing.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Nakano by providing fins extending from the carrier and corresponding grooves on the housing on opposite sides of the cavity as taught by Park or Nodzykowski since it would have provided an effective design which would have predictably prevented unwanted movement of the carrier in a housing, provided proper alignment and securing of the cell carrier in a larger housing.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0136956) in view of Ogura (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0302353) or Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0271899).
As to claim 18, Nakano discloses a cell carrier 71A/71B for supporting a plurality of cells 1 in a cavity of a battery pack 30, each cell 1 extending along an axis, the cell carrier 71A/71B comprising:
a housing defined by 71A/71B (Figs. 1-2 and 9 below); and
a plurality of channels formed in the housing 71A/71B, wherein each of the plurality of channels is configured to receive one of the plurality of cells 1, the cells 1 including at least one inner cell and at least one outer cell, the plurality of channels including
a first row of channels, and
a second row of channels, and
wherein a plurality of inner channels of the plurality of channels are configured with a continuous circumferential wall that surrounds the cell positioned in each of the plurality of inner channels along a length of at least one of the inner cells and wherein
at least one outer channel of the plurality of channels having an elongate slot exposing a length of at least one of the outer cells positioned in the at least one outer channel (see Figs. 1 and 2 and annotated Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
335
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
598
855
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 19, the housing 70 comprises first and second housings 71A/71B with corresponding sets of openings and wherein when the first and second housings 71A and 71B are coupled together, the first and second openings align to form the plurality of channels (Fig. 9, for example).
As to claim 20, the elongate slot is positioned at an outer edge of each row of channels (Fig. 9).
Nakano teaches of plural cells in first and second rows and teaches that the configuration and number of cells can be adjusted according to the intended use of the battery operated device and output voltage being used (para. [0070]).
Nakano does not teach of the first and second row of channels, with one row having more channels than the other (claim 18).
Nakano teaches of plural cells in first and second rows and teaches that the configuration and number of cells can be adjusted according to the intended use of the battery operated device and output voltage being used (para. [0070]). Stacking in the manner shown by Nakano was known to result in wasted space between adjacent cylindrical cells.
Providing first and second row of cells wherein one row has more cells than the other for power tool battery pack designs has long since been known in the art and would have been of routine skill in the art for at least the following reason(s).
For example, Ogura is drawn to the same field of endeavor, battery pack designs with plural cells contained in a housing for devices such as electric tools (Figs. 1-6 and 18 and abstract). Ogura provided a design wherein first and second adjacent rows of cells are staggered (log-stack orientation) and where one row has more cells than the other (Fig. 6). Similarly Johnson disclosed in Fig. 57 of a power tool battery pack having a log-stacked orientation where one row has more cells than the other. Providing a staggered or log-stacked orientation was known in the art to provide a cell array having a more compact arrangement, thereby providing increased energy density.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell orientation of Nakano to have as log-stack orientation such as that taught by Ogura or Johnson since it would have provided a compact cell array design and resulted in a battery pack with increased energy density.
As to one row of cells having a greater number of cells than the other, Nakano teaches that the battery pack and battery cells within can be adjusted to the intended use of the battery operated device and output voltage being used.
Ogura and Johnson, each teaches that tool/mower/blower battery packs can include first and second rows of cells of different number. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have routine skill to not only select the log-stack orientation but to further optimize the number of cells in each row as needed (the same or not) in combination with the log-stack orientation of Ogura or Johnson to provide not only a compact, high energy density design as a result of the log-stack arrangement but also optimized the number of cells to provide for good stacking, adjusted to the intended use of the battery operated device and output voltage being used.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of Nakano to have first and second rows of different cell numbers and a log-stack orientation as taught by Ogura or Johnson since it would have provided not only a compact, high energy density design as a result of the log-stack arrangement but also optimized the number of cells to provide for good stacking, adjusted to the intended use of the battery operated device and output voltage being used.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10-20 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 GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 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, 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights