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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 13, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the vacuum cleaner (as in claim 19), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haman (2012/0304836) in view of Falzone (2006/0107798) and Feuerstack et al. (DE 102018202326, translation included herewith).
In reference to claims 1 and 14, Haman discloses a power tool/device (10, Figures 1-2) comprising:
a housing (14, Figure 2); and
a motor (20) positioned within the housing (Figure 2);
wherein the housing is at least partially made of a polymeric material (i.e. a fiber reinforced polymeric material, see paragraph 24 disclosing that, “…housing 14 constructed of a rigid material such as plastic, metal, or composite materials such as a fiber-reinforced polymer.” ).
Haman lacks specifically disclosing that the polymeric material includes;
graphene; and
a polymer,
wherein the polymer is impregnated with the graphene; and
wherein the graphene polymeric material attenuates radiated emissions, and prevents electrostatic charge accumulation.
However, Falzone teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form a housing (3, similar to the housing 14, of Haman) from a polymeric material including carbon fiber (see paragraph 25 for disclosing that, “…housing 3 may be made of metal, high impact polymeric material, fiber such as carbon fiber, or combinations of these, or any other high strength materials that hand and power tools may be constructed.”).
In addition, Feuerstack et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form a housing (1) from a polymeric material (i.e. from 3 and 4, Figure 1) that includes carbon fibers (3) and graphene fibers (see following portion of translation for disclosing that, “It is particularly preferred that the carbon fibers comprise graphene fibers and / or carbon nanotubes.”. Thereby meeting the limitation of including graphene) a polymer (4), wherein the polymer is impregnated with the graphene (see following portion of translation for disclosing that, “The reinforcing component is at least partially embedded or arranged in the plastic component.” ); and since all of the structural limitations of the polymeric material have been met, the graphene polymeric material will similarly attenuate radiated emissions, and prevent electrostatic charge accumulation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the fiber-reinforced polymeric housing material, of Haman, with the known technique of forming a fiber-reinforced polymeric housing material comprising carbon, graphene and a polymer, wherein the polymer is impregnated with the graphene, as taught by Falzone and Feuerstack et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile housing having increased strength (see paragraph 25, of Falzone) and that is more mechanically stable, more thermally resistant and/or conductive and/or is more effective in EMC shielding (see following portion of translation, “It is a consideration of the invention to provide a plastic molding which is suitable for housing of electronic components and can be mechanically stable, thermally resistant and / or conductive and / or EMC shielding.”).
In reference to claim 2, Feuerstack et al. disclose that the polymer is a thermoplastic polymer (see following portion of translation, “The plastic component itself can be a multi-component mixture. In particular, the plastic component is formed as a resin or a plastic…The plastic component is constructed, for example, of a thermoplastic or of a duroplastic. Polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, polystyrene, liquid crystal polymer, polycarbonate, polyester, polyphenylene sulfide, polyamide, WMC and epoxy resin are particularly suitable as the plastic component.” ).
In reference to claim 3, Feuerstack et al. disclose that the thermoplastic polymer comprises at least one polymer selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl chloride, polycarbonate, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyamide, polypropylene, and high-density polyethylene (see following portion of translation, “Polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, polystyrene, liquid crystal polymer, polycarbonate, polyester, polyphenylene sulfide, polyamide, WMC and epoxy resin are particularly suitable as the plastic component.” ).
In reference to claim 4, Feuerstack et al. disclose that thermoplastic polymer is a thermoplastic polyurethane polymer (see following portion of translation, “The plastic component is constructed, for example, of a thermoplastic or of a duroplastic. Polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, polystyrene, liquid crystal polymer, polycarbonate, polyester, polyphenylene sulfide, polyamide, WMC and epoxy resin are particularly suitable as the plastic component.” ).
In reference to claim 5, modified Haman disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack specifically disclosing that;
the graphene polymeric material comprises 50 wt% to 99 wt% polymer and 1 wt% to 50 wt% graphene.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the weight percentage of the polymer and graphene of the polymeric material would result in a difference in function of the Haman device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the polymeric material, of Haman, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed range of weight percentages. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the claimed range of weight percentages of the polymeric material “may” be within the claimed range, and offering multiple other acceptable ranges (see specification paragraph 27) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight percentage of the polymer and graphene of the polymeric material, of modified Haman, to have a graphene polymeric material that comprises 50 wt% to 99 wt% polymer and 1 wt% to 50 wt% graphene, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
In reference to claim 6, Feuerstack et al. disclose that the graphene polymeric material is in the form of pellets (i.e. cylindrical or tubular pellets, see following portion of translation, “…the reinforcing component can also form a three-dimensional shape, for example a tubular or cylindrical shape.” ).
In reference to claim 7, modified Haman disclose that the entire housing is made of the graphene polymeric material (see Figure 2 showing the entire housing 14).
In reference to claim 8, Haman discloses a method of forming an article of manufacture (i.e. housing 14) from a polymeric material (i.e. a fiber reinforced polymeric material, see paragraph 24 disclosing that, “…housing 14 constructed of a rigid material such as plastic, metal, or composite materials such as a fiber-reinforced polymer.” ), the article of manufacture being a housing structure (14) of a device (10, Figures 1 and 2), the method comprising:
providing a polymeric material (paragraph 24); and
forming the housing structure of the device article of manufacture from the polymeric material (paragraph 24).
Haman lacks specifically disclosing that the polymeric material includes;
graphene impregnated within a polymer.
However, Falzone teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form a housing (3, similar to the housing 14, of Haman) from a polymeric material including carbon fiber (see paragraph 25 for disclosing that, “…housing 3 may be made of metal, high impact polymeric material, fiber such as carbon fiber, or combinations of these, or any other high strength materials that hand and power tools may be constructed.”).
In addition, Feuerstack et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form a housing (1) from a polymeric material (i.e. from 3 and 4, Figure 1) that includes carbon fibers (3) and graphene fibers (see following portion of translation for disclosing that, “It is particularly preferred that the carbon fibers comprise graphene fibers and / or carbon nanotubes.”. Thereby meeting the limitation of including graphene) impregnated within a polymer (4, see following portion of translation for disclosing that, “In particular, the reinforcing component is impregnated with the plastic component.” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the fiber-reinforced polymeric housing material, of Haman, with the known technique of forming a fiber-reinforced polymeric housing material comprising carbon and graphene impregnated within a polymer, as taught by Falzone and Feuerstack et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile housing having increased strength (see paragraph 25, of Falzone) and that is more mechanically stable, more thermally resistant and/or conductive and/or is more effective in EMC shielding (see following portion of translation, “It is a consideration of the invention to provide a plastic molding which is suitable for housing of electronic components and can be mechanically stable, thermally resistant and / or conductive and / or EMC shielding.”).
In reference to claim 9, Feuerstack et al. disclose injecting the graphene polymeric material into a mold (i.e. during injection molding, see following portion of translation, “Especially it is preferred that the reinforcing component is extrusion-coated with the plastic component, for example in an injection molding process step.” ).
In reference to claim 10, modified Haman disclose forming the housing structure of the device via injection molding because Feuerstack et al. teach the step of injection molding (see following portion of translation, “Especially it is preferred that the reinforcing component is extrusion-coated with the plastic component, for example in an injection molding process step.”).
In reference to claim 11, Haman disclose that the device is a power tool (i.e. impact wrench 10, Figure 1 and paragraph 23).
In reference to claims 12, 13 and 20, since all of the structural limitations of the polymeric material have been met by modified Haman, the graphene polymeric material will similarly attenuate radiated emissions, and prevent electrostatic charge accumulation.
In reference to claim 15, Haman disclose that the device (10) is a power source (at 24, Figure 2).
In reference to claim 16, Haman disclose that the device is a battery pack or battery pack (24, see paragraph 24).
In reference to claim 17, Haman disclose that the device is a power tool (10, see paragraph 23).
In reference to claim 18, Haman disclose that the device is a piece of outdoor (because the tool 10 can be used outdoors) power equipment (i.e. impact tool 10, see paragraph 23).
Claim 6, is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haman (2012/0304836) in view of Falzone (2006/0107798), Feuerstack et al. (DE 102018202326, translation included herewith) and Aitchison (CN 111108341, translation included herewith).
In further reference to claim 6, assuming arguendo that Haman lack,
forming the graphene polymeric material in the form of pellets, than Aitchison is used for such a teaching.
Aitchison teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form graphene in the form of pellets (see following portion of translation disclosing that, “a fibre comprises graphene. fibre can be pellets or powder of a polymer formed by melt extrusion”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the graphene material, of modified Haman, with the known technique of providing graphene in the form of pellets, as taught by Aitchison, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that obtains a desired concentration of graphene in the fiber in the fusion extrusion process (see following portion of translation disclosing that, “the graphene polymer dispersion of the concentrated form mixed and diluted, to obtain desired concentration of graphene in the fiber in the fusion extrusion process.”).
Claim 19, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haman (2012/0304836) in view of Falzone (2006/0107798), Feuerstack et al. (DE 102018202326, translation included herewith) and Yang (4976173).
In reference to claim 19, Haman disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
the device is a vacuum cleaner.
However, Yang teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a tool/device (Figure 2) that can include a vacuum cleaner (see vacuum cleaner attachment in Figure 4 that can be combined with the tool/device in Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the tool/device, of Haman, with the known technique of providing a device that can include the vacuum cleaner, as taught by Yang, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that can be adapted to function in a multitude of uses and would be a great convenience and economic benefit to the user (Column 1, Lines 26-29).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Langerak (2005/0005739) also teaches of forming a housing (2) by an injection molding technique (paragraph 6).
Yang (4962681) also shows various types of power tools that can be used in a single device (Figure 11) including a vacuum cleaner (Figure 12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723