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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 19-20 withdrawn pursuant to previous election by Applicant. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
The rejection of claims 1 and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ciaccio et al. US 2017/0256833 A is withdrawn pursuant to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moores, Jr., et al., US 2002/0034682 A1 in view of Giorgi et al., US 2019/0109477 A1, is withdrawn pursuant to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 2-6 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moores, Jr., et al., US 2002/0034682 A1 in view of Giorgi et al., US 2019/0109477 A1, and further in view of NPL reference Chavez et al., J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2018, 51, 014005 is withdrawn pursuant to Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 10 have been considered but they address the unfilled space in the newly amended Claims 1 and 10 and not the original Claim 1. The examiner directs the applicant to the current rejection of claims 1 and 10 below where the position of the thermoelectric generators in an unfilled space is taught in both Moores and Giorgi as within the housing/enclosure of the battery cells and is physically near the battery array as shown for example in Fig. 5 of Moores which clearly shows the thermoelectric generators (comprising the heat pump 106 and heat sinks 108) as between the cells 36 and the housing 100 and therefore in an unfilled space and Giorgi teaching a similar positioning(¶[0025] of Giorgi).
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 1, 7-9, 10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moores, Jr., et al., US 2002/0034682 A1 (hereinafter “Moores”) in view of Giorgi et al., US 2019/0109477 A1 (hereinafter “Giorgi”) and further in view of Brault et. al. (US20200252774A1). NPL reference Ubong, “Best Voltage for Cordless Tools”, published February 14, 2020, (hereinafter “Ubong”) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Moores discloses:
a handheld power tool (i.e., cordless power tool) [abstract]; and
a battery pack (i.e., battery pack) [abstract]; comprising
a housing (i.e., battery pack housing) [abstract];
a plurality of rechargeable battery cells within the housing (i.e., plurality of battery cells 36) [¶ 0035]; and
a thermoelectric generator (i.e., Peltier device 106) [¶ 0042] in an unfilled space between the battery cells 36 and the housing 100 (see Fig.5) and positioned proximate to (see Fig. 5) and in thermal communication with the plurality of rechargeable battery cells (i.e., batteries are heated/cooled by Peltier device) [see ¶ 0042].
Moores is, however, silent regarding the use of a plurality of thermoelectric devices and the configuration of those devices to convert heat into electrical energy and to transfer that electrical energy to the plurality of rechargeable battery cells. However, in the same field of endeavor, Giorgi discloses a battery pack (i.e., battery assembly) [abstract] comprising:
a plurality of rechargeable battery cells within the housing (i.e., battery array 10, which includes a plurality of secondary batteries) [¶ 0022] and
a plurality of thermoelectric generators (i.e., thermal generator 210 [¶ 0027], which may include one or more Seebeck generators, as noted in ¶ 0043);
the plurality of thermoelectric generators are positioned physically near the battery array 10 and within of an enclosure of the battery array(¶[0025]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as within an unfilled space between the outer surface of the battery cells and the inner surface of the housing enclosure and therefore in thermal communication with the plurality of battery cells (see positioning in Fig. 1; thermal communication is indicated in this figure by the wavy lines to represent heat flow);
the plurality of thermoelectric generators configured to convert heat into electrical energy (i.e., “heat collector 20 converts heat produced by the battery array 10 to electrical energy via a thermal generator 210”) [¶ 0027] and to transfer the electrical energy into the plurality of rechargeable battery cells (i.e., “direct converted electrical energy back to the battery array 10, e.g., to at least partially recharge the batteries of the battery array 10 during a charge cycle of the battery array 10”) [¶ 0028].
Moores and Giorgi are analogous art because both are drawn to battery packs comprising thermoelectric devices and a plurality of battery cells. It therefore would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the plurality of Seebeck generators of Giorgi to the device of Moores with the expectation to produce a battery pack for a handheld power tool capable of converting waste heat into electricity to charge the battery cells. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do this because, as noted by Giorgi, to increase the efficiency of the battery pack (see ¶ 0002-0007).
Moores is also silent regarding the relative dimensions of the housing including a first, second and third length.
Brault, related to battery packs for power tools, teaches battery pack 207 with a housing (¶[0054], Fig. 4) where the housing having an inside portion which houses the battery cells includes an upper surface having a first length, a bottom surface having a second length, and a front face surface having a third length, wherein the upper surface is positioned at a distance opposite of the bottom surface, wherein the front face surface is positioned at a first end of the upper surface and a first end of the bottom surface, wherein the second length is less than the first length and greater than the third length.
Furthermore, A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 16-18, modified Moores teaches the battery of claim 1 and the system of claim 10. Moores further discloses the use of that battery pack in a cordless handheld power tool [abstract]. As noted by Ubong, power tools have voltages ranging from 3 to 48 V [p. 1]. Thus, the skilled artisan would have expected the battery pack of Moores to supply a voltage in the range of 3 to 48 V, which overlaps the claimed ranges of up to 80 V and up to 18 V from claims 7 and 8, respectively.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide multiple thermoelectric devices to the device of Moores, as Giorgi provides support for multiple Seebeck generators (i.e., “one or more sources,” where sources are noted to include Seebeck generators) [¶ 0043]. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do this because the plurality of devices can more efficiently dissipate heat away from the battery pack by converting it into electricity.
Additionally, The mere duplication of the existing thermoelectric device required by the instant claim bears no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (B).
Regarding claim 9, modified Moores teaches the battery pack of claim 1. The thermoelectric devices of Giorgi, which replaced the Peltier devices of Moores, are configured to remove waste heat from batteries and convert it into electrical energy, and the skilled artisan would have recognized this removal of heat energy as a type of cooling.
Claims 2-6 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moores, Jr., et al., US 2002/0034682 A1 (hereinafter “Moores”) in view of Giorgi et al., US 2019/0109477 A1 (hereinafter “Giorgi”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL reference Chavez et al., J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2018, 51, 014005 (hereinafter “Chavez”). Chavez qualifies as prior art under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) with its prior publication date of 12 December 2017.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 11-14, modified Moores discloses the battery pack of claim 1 and the system of claim 10 but is silent regarding the limitations of claims 2-5 and 11-14.
However, Chavez discloses [p. 2, col. 1, ¶ 1 and Fig. 1(a)] that thermoelectric generators (TEGs) are manufactured with a first face (i.e., the top substrate in Fig. 1(a)), a bottom face (i.e., the bottom substrate in Fig. 1(a)), a plurality of semiconductors between the first face and the second face (i.e., red and blue colored blocks labeled “p” and “n” in Fig. 1(a), which correspond to p- and n-type semiconductors), at least one conductive layer (labelled “metal” and shown as a green plate in Chavez Fig. 1), and a positive lead and negative lead coupled to at least one of the conductive layers (see Fig. 9(a)).
It therefore would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that substituting the thermoelectric generators of Chavez for use in the battery of modified Moores would have the predictable result of a battery pack with thermoelectric generators to heat or cool the battery pack. It therefore would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have substituted the thermoelectric generators of Chavez for use in the battery of modified Moores to yield the predictable result of a battery pack with thermoelectric generators to heat or cool the battery pack. See MPEP § 2143 (I) (B).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, modified Moores discloses the battery pack of claim 5 and the system of claim 14. Giorgi discloses that the Seebeck devices can charge the battery array (see rejection of claim 1). Therefore, a skilled artisan would have understood that to mean an electrical connection exists between the Seebeck devices and at least one of the plurality of secondary battery cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 28 January 2026