Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/182,599

BATTERY CHARGER INCLUDING A SEALED BATTERY INTERFACE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 13, 2023
Examiner
TSO, EDWARD H
Art Unit
2859
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
1098 granted / 1260 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1297
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1260 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 IDSes filed 3/14/23 and 10/12/23 have both been considered and placed of record. The initialed copies are attached herewith. Claim Objections Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: there should be a semicolon replacing a comma on line 10 (a seal interposed between the receptacle and the battery receiving interface [,] ; the battery….” (similar to last two paragraphs of claim 1). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese document JP2013192282A (see machine translation). Re claim 1, the document discloses, inter alia, a battery charger 10 to which a battery pack 100 may be coupled, the battery charger comprising: a housing including a battery receiving interface 10a, the housing defining a cavity (fig 2 shows the area around fan cover 20 defining a cavity), the battery receiving interface defining a recess extending inwardly toward the cavity (fig 2 shows the area around attachment portion 10 defining a recess); a terminal block 31 disposed in the recess; and a receptacle coupled to the battery receiving interface (fig 2 shows fan cover 20 defining a receptacle), the receptacle including a seal 25 interposed between the receptacle and the battery receiving interface, wherein the battery receiving interface, the receptacle, and the seal cooperate to form a chamber between the terminal block and the cavity (fig 2 shows drainage portion 24 defining the chamber). Re claim 2, the document further discloses the receptacle further includes a channel defined therein, the channel extending about a majority of a perimeter of the chamber (document claim 3 defining drainage part for receiving water accumulates on the surface), the seal includes a gasket 25 disposed in the channel. Re claim 3, the document further discloses the terminal block 31 includes at least one terminal fin extending in a direction away from the receptacle (fig 1 shows reference 31 pointing toward fins), the chamber includes a rectangular cross-section in a plane perpendicular to the direction of the terminal fin, and the channel extends along the plane and around at least three sides of the chamber (paragraph “the invention according to claim 3… cost does not increase” defining channels on all sides of chamber to remove water). Re claim 4, the document further discloses the gasket overmolding on the receptacle (fig 6; paragraph “On both sides… is prevented”). Re claim 11, the document further discloses the receptacle supports the terminal block (fig 6). Re claim 12, the document discloses, inter alia, a battery charger 10 to which a battery pack 100 may be coupled, the battery charger comprising: a battery receiving interface 10a, the battery receiving interface 10a having an exterior receiving side and an opposite interior side; a chamber (fig 2 shows drainage portion 24 defining the chamber) disposed on the interior side, the chamber configured to receive and retain fluid introduced to the exterior receiving side of the battery receiving interface (paragraph “the drainage part 24 is for receiving the water); a terminal block 31 disposed in the battery receiving interface 10a (fig 1); and a plurality of wires coupled to the terminal block, the plurality of wires extending through the chamber (not shown but inherent wirings are routing through terminal block 31 for power; paragraph “as shown in figure 1, the connection terminal 31…connected to the battery). 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 5-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese document JP2013192282A (see machine translation). Re claim 5, the document is silent on having a grommet on a seal. Official notice is taken of the fact that grommets are used as a passage through the seal without damaging the integrity of the seal. It would have been obvious to have included grommets in the seal to feed wires therethrough without having any ingress of fluid. Re claim 6, the document is silent on having the wires be routed from the terminal block through the chamber and the grommet. Official notice is taken of the fact that “outside” wirings need to be routed through seal via grommet to ensure proper protection from the fluid. It would have been obvious to have routed the wires through the chamber and the grommet to ensure the seal does not damage the integrity of the seal. Re claim 7, the document is silent on having the grommet with a plurality of holes to feed each wire. Official notice is taken of the fact that having individual hole for individual wire would ensure proper sealing of the wire because a bundle of wires feeding through a single hole would result in fluid leakage between each wire. It would have been obvious to provide individual hole in the grommet for individual wire to ensure proper seal of the device. Re claims 8 and 13, the reference is silent on overmolding the wires in the terminal block. Official notice is taken of the fact that overmolding the wires would make the wires stiffer. It would have been obvious to have overmolded the wires to allow the wires to be stiffer in order to better attach to the electrical block. Re claim 9, the document further discloses the passage defining between the terminal block 31 and the battery receiving interface 10a in fluid communication with the chamber (draining portion 24; figs 1-2). Re claim 10, the document further discloses terminal fin with the terminal block (fig 1shows reference 31 pointing toward the fin) and the passage is located on the side of the block opposite the terminal fin (fig 1 shows passages between fins routing to the chamber). Re claim 14, the document further discloses an intro end and a stop end of the battery receiving interface (i.e. interface 10a has the front end and a back end). However, it is silent on the length between the passage and the two ends. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to devised any appropriate length including the claimed length, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Re claim 15, the document further discloses the passage is between the terminal block 31 and the stop end of the battery receiving interface 10a (fig 1 shows passages between fin pointing via reference 31). Re claim 16, the document further discloses the battery receiving interface having a seal 25 encompassing the chamber. Re claims 17 and 18, the document further discloses the gasket encompasses the majority of the chamber and the battery receiving interface (fig 6; paragraph “On both sides… is prevented”). Re claim 19, the document is silent on having the seal including a grommet for wires and that the grommet is positioned closer to the intro end than to the stop end. (1) Official notice is taken of the fact that grommets are used as a passage through the seal without damaging the integrity of the seal. It would have been obvious to have included grommets in the seal to feed wires therethrough without having any ingress of fluid. (2) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have positioned the grommet closer to one end than to the other end as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Re claim 20, the document discloses, inter alia, a battery charger 10 to which a battery pack 100 may be coupled, the battery charger comprising: a housing including a battery receiving interface 10a, the housing defining a cavity (fig 2 shows the area around fan cover 20 defining a cavity), the battery receiving interface 10a defining a recess extending inwardly toward the cavity (fig 2 shows the area around attachment portion 10 defining a recess); a terminal block having a plurality of wires extending therefrom (inherent feature of terminal block to have wires), the terminal block 31 disposed in the recess; a passage defined between the terminal block and the battery receiving interface (fig 1 shows passages between fin pointing via reference 31); a receptacle coupled to the battery receiving interface (fig 2 shows fan cover 20 defining a receptacle), the receptacle including a channel defined therein (document claim 3 defining drainage part for receiving water accumulates on the surface); and a seal 25 interposed between the receptacle and the battery receiving interface; the battery receiving interface, the receptacle, and the seal cooperate to form a chamber between the terminal block and cavity (fig 2 shows drainage portion 24 defining the chamber), the channel extending about a majority of a perimeter of the chamber (document claim 3 defining drainage part for receiving water accumulates on the surface), the chamber in fluid communication with the passage (draining portion 24; figs 1-2), the seal 25 having a gasket 25 disposed in the channel, the gasket being overmolded on the receptacle (fig 6; paragraph “On both sides… is prevented”), and . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art made of record shows the state of tool battery chargers. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm. The Examiner’s SPE is Taelor Kim and he can be reached at 571.270.7166. The fax number for the organization where this application 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. /EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 13, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603523
ELECTRONIC CHARGING SHELF SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597782
CHARGER INCLUDING MULTIPLE ADJUSTABLE POWER SOURCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597787
DATA LINE AND CHARGING DEVICE WITH SWITCHABLE CONFIGURATION CHANNEL CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587022
A BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEM WITH MULTI-LEVEL CONVERTER AND MULTIPLE STORAGE SECTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580418
GROUND ASSEMBLY FOR AN INDUCTIVE CHARGING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+6.1%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1260 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month