DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 02/27/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13-15, 17, and 18 are amended and claims 5 and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-20 are pending examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “hermitically” should be spelled “hermetically”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US-20070236177-A1) in view of Janarthanam (US-20160020447-A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Phillips teaches a battery pack (Fig. 3, battery pack; see Fig. 2 illustratively, pack 4; [0030]) adapted to couple to a battery powered device (illustratively Fig. 2, power tool 2; [0026]; hereinafter Fig. 1 and 2 will be referred to for illustrative purposes only), the battery pack 4 comprising:
a housing (Fig. 3, 20; [0031]) including a vent (annotated Fig. 3A, 81; [0031]) in a side (Fig. 3A, bottom side of 20) of the housing 20 that is adapted to face away from a user (wherein “face away from a user” is a functional limitation, wherein all the positively recited structure is taught by Philips) when the battery pack 4 is coupled to the battery powered device 2 and the user is operating the battery powered device (wherein the limitation thereof is also a functional limitation and all the positively recited structure is taught);
wherein the vent (annotated Fig. 3A, 81; [0031]) includes a valve (Fig. 3A, label 82, wherein 82 is at least a pressure sensitive gateway; see [0031] which is consistent with the instant specification, which recites “valve 118, such as … pressure sensitive gateway”) disposed proximal (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proximal, situated close to) the vent 81,
wherein the valve is adapted to allow fluid [0031] to be released from an interior of the housing [0031] through the vent (annotated Fig. 3, 81; [0031]) and restrict incursion of fluid [0031] into the housing 20 through the vent 81;
a battery cell (Fig. 2; 9; [0031]) disposed (see Fig. 2) in the housing 20;
a connection interface (Fig. 1 and 6, interface between 61 and the top of 20; [0024]) operatively coupled (wherein all elements of the battery powered device that at electrically coupled, such as 61 and 20 [0024], are operatively coupled) to the battery cell (Fig. 1, 9; [0024]).
However, Phillips fails to teach the valve disposed in the housing. Janarthanam teaches a valve (Fig. 5, 78) disposed in the housing (Fig. 5, wherein at least a portion of 78, 88, is disposed in the housing). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute valve 82 with the valve 78, as both 82 and 78 are functionally equivalent valves, providing the same predictable result of a pressure sensitive gateway, and because Janarthanam’s umbrella valve (see Fig. 5, 78) is not destroyed after venting (see Fig. 5, wherein 78 is still present after venting) resulting in a more mechanically robust arrangement. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 2,
Phillips teaches the battery pack of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the side (Fig. 3, https://www.inglenookeng.com/rd-on-prv-outlet/, )
Regarding claim 3,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the battery pack of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but wherein the valve 78 substantially seals the interior of the housing from an external environment [0053].
Regarding claim 4,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the battery pack of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the valve 78 substantially hermitically [0053] seals [0053] the interior of the housing from an external environment [0053]
Regarding claim 6,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the battery pack of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the valve 78 includes a pressure disc ([0057], wherein 78 includes sealing disk 92, see modification of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the battery pack of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the valve includes a check valve (Fig. 5A/B, check valve 78 with sealing disc 92; [0057]).
Regarding claim 8,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the battery pack of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the battery cell 9 is a lithium-ion cell. However, in the background section, Phillips teaches various types of batteries, such as lithium-ion batteries [0005], are typical in the art [0004-0005]. Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use lithium-ion batteries as Phillips teaches they are typical in the art [0005].
Regarding claim 9,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the battery pack of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the battery cell 9 is a nickel-cadmium cell. However, in the background section, Phillips teaches various types of batteries, such as nickel-cadmium batteries [0005], are typical in the art [0004-0005]. Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use nickel cadmium batteries as Phillips teaches they are typical in the art [0005]..
Regarding claim 10,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the battery pack of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the battery cell 9 is a nickel metal hydride cell. However, in the background section, Phillips teaches various types of batteries, such as nickel metal hydride batteries [0005], are typical in the art [0004-0005]. Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use nickel metal hydride batteries as Phillips teaches they are typical in the art [0005].
Regarding claim 11,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the battery pack of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the connection interface (portion of 20 which mates with 61; see [0026] which indicates that 61 and 20 are releasable from each other via a latch/release mechanism).
Regarding claim 12,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the battery pack of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the housing (Fig. 2, 20) includes a locking release (Fig. 2, mechanism (not depicted) between 8 and 20; [0026], “latch/release”).
Regarding claim 13,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches a power tool (Fig. 3, portion of power tool; see also Fig. 2 illustratively, tool 2; [0026]; hereinafter Fig. 1 and 2 are referred to for illustrative purposes only 2) comprising:
a tool body (Fig. 2, depicted portion of 2 excluding a drill bit; [0026-0027]) having a head (Fig. 2, upper barrel of 2; [0026]) and a base (Fig. 2, vertical handle of 2 [0027]);
a motor (Fig. 2, 72; [0027]) disposed in the tool body 2;
and a battery pack (Fig. 2, 4; [0022]) coupled (wherein all elements of 2 are directly or indirectly coupled) to the base (Fig. 2, vertical handle of 2 [0027]) of the tool body (Fig. 2, depicted portion of 2 excluding a drill bit),
the battery pack 4 including: a housing (Fig. 2, 20; [0025]),
a vent (81 in Fig. 3 for illustrative purposes only) in a side (Fig. 3,front side) of the housing 20 that is adapted to face away from a user (wherein the limitation thereof is considered a functional limitation, wherein all the positively recited structure is taught) when the battery pack 4 is coupled to the battery powered device 2 and the user is operating the battery powered device (functional limitation, wherein all the positively recited structure is taught);
wherein the vent (annotated Fig. 3, 81; [0031]) includes a valve (Fig. 3, bursting film 82; see claim interpretation above) disposed in the housing (Fig. 3, inside of 20) and proximal (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proximal, “located toward the center”, wherein the majority of curved body of 89 is closer to the center of the power tool, compared to the “vent hole” of Fig. 3, which is more distal),
wherein the valve is adapted to allow fluid [0031] to be released from an interior of the housing (Fig. 3, inside of 20) through the vent (81 [0031]) and restrict incursion of fluid [0031] into the housing 20 through the vent 81;
a battery cell (Fig. 2, 9; [0025]) disposed in the housing (Fig. 2, 20);
a connection interface (Fig. 1, portion on 20 mating with 61; described in [0024]) electrically coupling the battery cell (Fig. 1, 9; [0024]).
Phillips fails to teach disposed in the housing (Fig. 3, inside of 20). However, Janarthanam teaches a valve (Fig. 5, 78) disposed in the housing (Fig. 5, wherein at least a portion of 78, 88, is disposed in the housing). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute valve 82 with the valve 78, as both 82 and 78 are functionally equivalent valves, providing the same predictable result of a pressure sensitive gateway, and because Janarthanam’s umbrella valve (see Fig. 5, 78) is not destroyed after venting (see Fig. 5, wherein 78 is still present after venting) resulting in a more mechanically robust arrangement. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 14,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the battery pack of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the side of the housing (Fig. 3, side of housing with 82) is a front side of the housing (Fig. 3, wherein side of housing with 82 is depicted as on the front side in the figure).
Regarding claim 15,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the battery pack of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the valve 78 substantially hermetically seals [0053] the interior of the housing from an external environment [0053]
Regarding claim 17,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the power tool of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the valve 78 includes a pressure disc (Fig. 5, sealing disc 92).
Regarding claim 18,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the power tool of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the valve includes a check valve 78.
Regarding claim 19,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the power tool of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above) but fails to teach wherein the battery cell is one of a lithium-cell, nickel-cadmium cell, or nickel-metal hydride cell. However, in the background section, Phillips teaches various types of batteries, such as lithium-ion, nickel-cadmium, and nickel metal hydride batteries [0005], are typical in the art [0004-0005]. Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to select the battery cell as one of a lithium-cell, nickel-cadmium cell, or nickel-metal hydride cell.
Regarding claim 20,
Phillips in view of Janarthanam teaches the power tool of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the connection interface (portion on 20 mating with 61 as described in [0026]) is releasable [0026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding the 101 rejection is persuasive. Accordingly, the 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand which direction faces away from the user. However, this is not persuasive, as this is a functional limitation which does not impart any specific structure on the device.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Takeaki are moot in light of the updated rejection.
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 PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights