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 .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn pursuant to Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new grounds 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brault et. al. (US20200252774A1) in view of Reihlen et al. (US20150123481A1) and Giorgi et al., US 2019/0109477 A1. Ubong, “Best Voltage for Cordless Tools”, published February 14, 2020, (hereinafter “Ubong”) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Brault discloses:
a handheld power tool (i.e. power tool 105) ¶[0052]]; and
a battery pack (i.e., battery pack 207); comprising
a housing (battery pack housing in 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.
Brault does not disclose a plurality of rechargeable battery cells or a plurality of thermoelectric generators within the housing.
Reihlen, related to batteries, teaches an energy storage module 5 with energy storage cells 5a- 5k(¶[0036]) and a thermoelectric generator directly on the energy storage cells [¶ 0047] in an unfilled space between the battery cells and the housing and thereby positioned proximate to and in thermal communication with the plurality of rechargeable battery cells.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the cells with thermoelectric generators would have provided rapid and powerful cooling during operation to avoid overheating(¶[0016]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have added the cells with thermoelectric generators to provide rapid and powerful cooling during operation to avoid overheating.
Brault does not disclose the use of a plurality of thermoelectric 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]) and 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].
Brault 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).
Regarding claims 7-9 and 16-18, modified Brault teaches the battery of claim 1 and the system of claim 10 including a battery pack in a power tool. 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 modified Brault 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.
Reihlen further teaches there may be a plurality of thermoelectric generators(i.e. cooling elements, ¶[0035]) depending on the number of batteries and quantity of heat produced. Therefore it would have been obvious to have provided at least 40 thermoelectric generators depending on the size and quantity of heat produced by the battery. 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).
Claims 2-6 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brault et. al. (US20200252774A1) in view of Reihlen et al. (US20150123481A1) and Giorgi et al., US 2019/0109477 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Chavez et al., J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2018, 51, 014005.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 11-12, modified Brault discloses the battery pack of claim 1 and the system of claim 10 but is silent regarding the limitations of claims 2-3, 5, 11-12, and 14.
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.
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 Brault 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 Brault 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 4 and 13, modified Brault discloses the battery pack of claim 1 and the system of claim 10 and Chavez further discloses the thermoelectric generators have at least one conductive layer (labelled “metal” and shown as a green plate in Chavez Fig. 1) but is silent regarding wherein the plurality of thermoelectric generators are coupled to the outer surface of the plurality of the rechargeable battery cells by at least one selected from a group consisting of: a fastener, an adhesive, and a friction fit.
Giorgi, related to batteries with thermoelectrics, teaches a battery pack (i.e., battery assembly) 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] and they can be physically coupled to the battery array [¶ 0032] .
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the requirement to physically couple would include methods common in the art such as a fastener, adhesive or friction fit.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have physically coupled the battery and thermoelectric generator via methods common in the art such as a fastener, adhesive or friction fit.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, modified Brault discloses the battery pack of claim 4 and the system of claim 12 and Chavez further discloses a positive lead and negative lead coupled to at least one of the conductive layers (see Fig. 9(a)).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, modified Brault discloses the battery pack of claim 5 and the system of claim 14 and Reihlen further teaches the positive lead and the negative lead are electrically coupled to at least one of the plurality of rechargeable battery cells(¶[0041], Fig. 4).
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 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 30 July 2026
Prosecution Insights