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 .
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 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.
Claims 13-18 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0367302 to Reese et al. ("Reese"). Regarding claims 13 and 20-24, Reese discloses a tool system comprising multiple battery packs to be received within the handle of a power tool such that a user can choose a battery pack having the right balance between capacity, size, weight, balance etc., for a given job. Reese at Abstract and paragraphs [0019] and [0031]. Each of the plurality of battery packs (20) include an outer housing that includes a post portion (22) and a base portion (24), the interior volume of which house a plurality of cylindrical lithium ion battery cells connected in series so as to provide 20V electrical power to a tool. Id. at paragraph [0002] and [0026]. Moreover, the post portion (22) includes electrical contacts that are configured to couple to electrical contacts of the power tool when the battery pack is seated in the power tool. Id. at paragraph [0023]. Thus, the electrical contacts of each battery pack housing are considered to correspond to the recited connection interface couplable to the power tool.
Reese discloses several different battery packs that may be included in its system, including a first battery pack (200) that includes five cylindrical battery cells having a diameter of 14mm, a second battery pack (300) that includes five cylindrical battery cells having a diameter of 18mm, and a third battery pack (400) that includes five cylindrical battery cells having a diameter of 20mm. Id. at
paragraph [0027]. Thus, the 14mm battery cells of the first battery pack (200) are of a type that is different from the cells of both the second (300) and third (400) battery packs by being smaller in diameter; the 18mm battery cells of the second battery pack (300) are of a type that is different from those of the first battery pack (200) by being larger in diameter than those and different from those of the third battery pack (400) by being smaller than those; and the 20mm battery cells of the third battery pack (400) are different than those of both the first (200) and second (300) battery packs by being larger than both.
Regarding the recited energy density, Reese discloses that a purpose of its invention is to provide battery packs that have a desired size/weight/capacity for a given application. Accordingly, the recited energy density is considered to be nothing more than the obvious result of tuning the size/weight/capacity of the battery packs of a tool system to meet the demands of a particular set of applications.
Further regarding claim 14, in some embodiments each of the first, second, and third battery packs is configured to mount into the same cavity of the power tool, thus having the same connection interfaces. Id. at paragraph [0031].
Further regarding claim 15, Reese defines the diameter of the first battery cells as "about 14mm". Id. at paragraph [0035]. The diameter of the third battery cells is said to range from 20-21mm, but is nonetheless stated as being 20mm. Id. at paragraph [0027]. Thus, sufficient evidence exists to find that the 14mm diameter of Reese has a range of at least 14mm to 15mm, such that the range of diameters of the first, second, and third battery types all fall within the range of 15 to 55mm.
Further regarding claim 16, the first, second, and third battery types of Reese have a length ranging from 60 to 70mm. Id. at paragraphs [0035], [0043], and [0051].
Further regarding claim 17, each of the first, second, and third battery packs use five lithium ion cells connected in series, thus the first battery pack (200) with its smaller cells has a lowest capacity, the third battery pack (400) with its larger cells has a highest capacity, and the second battery pack (300) with its intermediate-sized cells has an intermediate capacity. Id. at paragraphs [0028]-[0030].
Further regarding claim 18, because each of the first, second, and third battery packs utilize cylindrical batteries of slightly different diameters, there will be slight differences in the amount of void interstitial volume:active battery volume within each of those packs, thereby necessarily leading to slight differences in energy density amongst the three battery packs.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reese in view of European Patent Publication No. EP 3460866 to Seefeldt ("Seefeldt"). Regarding claims 1-5, Reese is applied as described above. In addition to the first (200), second (300), and fourth (400) battery packs, Reese discloses another battery pack couplable to the tool that instead of utilizing five cylindrical battery cells uses a plurality of lithium ion batteries to provide 20V. Reese at paragraph [0068]. Although the drawings of Reese suggest that the lithium ion battery cells may be pouch type due to the rectangular nature of the pack, Reese doesn't expressly state that the lithium ion battery cells are pouch-type.
Nonetheless, lithium ion battery cells are typically used in pouch-type format in hand tools because the flat shape maximizes use of shape and results in a battery capable of providing high power with low heat generation. Seefeldt at Title and paragraphs [0001] and [0002]. Thus, ensuring that the lithium polymer cells of this fourth type of battery pack for use with the tool of Reese are pouch-type would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a common means to arrive at a lithium polymer battery pack of high power/specific capacity and low heat generation.
Further regarding claim 6, as noted above the cylindrical battery cells of one of Reese's battery pack (300) have a diameter of 18mm and a length ranging from 60-70mm, a size range which the recited size falls into. Thus, the cells of battery pack (300) in Reese render the recited 18mm X 65mm first plurality of cylindrical cells obvious.
Similarly regarding claim 7, the cylindrical cells of Reese's battery pack (400) have a 20-21mm diameter an length ranging from 60-70mm, thereby rendering the recited 21mm X 70mm second plurality of cylindrical cells obvious.
Further regarding claim 8, as discussed above the purpose of providing the first, second, and third battery packs of Reese is that each has a unique size/shape and capacity allowing the user to select a battery pack that is smaller and better able to fit into tight spaces when needed, or a larger pack when higher capacity is prioritized.
Further regarding claim 9, as noted the purpose of the different battery packs is to provide a range of sizes not just to make the tool lighter and more compact, but to specifically make it more accessible in certain tight fit conditions. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have reason to adjust the length of each of the three battery packs for a use case where the tool needs to squeeze into small spaces relative to the length of the battery pack.
Further regarding claim 10, the difference in diameters amongst the cylindrical cells used in the first, second, and third battery packs of Reese will necessarily result in a difference in height for each battery pack when measured from a bottom of the base portion to the top of the post portion.
Further regarding claims 11 and 12, the relative capacity and energy density of the first (200), second (300) and third (400) battery packs of Reese are discussed above. Regarding the fourth pack including lithium polymer pouch cells, as noted the goal of Reese is to provide battery packs of different capacity, thus the person would have reason to ensure that the fourth battery pack has a different capacity than that of the other packs. Moreover, as noted above with respect to claim 1, the benefit of the pouch-type lithium polymer cells is their improved energy density compared to packs made from cylindrical cells, thus the pouch-cell-based pack is capable of having a higher energy density than the three cylindrical cell packs and the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have reason to ensure its density is higher to make a more compact system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the anticipation rejection of claims 13-24 have been considered and are found persuasive. While the disclosure of Reese with its significant similarities to that of Applicant suggests that it is likely, or very obvious, to arrive at battery packs of the recited energy density, there are enough unaddressed variables that the matter is not necessarily a certainty, rendering the anticipation rejection based on inherency flawed. Nonetheless, the claims are found obvious over Reese for similar reasons, as outlined in the new grounds of rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 1-12 over Reese in view of Seefeldt have beend considered and are not found persuasive. As an initial matter, it is noted that the rejection relies on more than just the teachings of Seefeldt, but also on the showing in Reese of pouch-shaped battery cells. Seefeldt discloses in its abstract that the purpose of its invention is to provide flat batteries for use in power tools. Seefeldt notes the commonality of pouch-type batteries citing to WO2016/019924 (directed to pouch-type batteries for use in power tools, see Abstract and first paragraph), U.S. 9,537,173 (directed to pouch-type batteries for use in power tools, see title and col. 9, lines 33-39) among others. Thus, Seefeldt establishes that pouch-type lithium ion batteries are commonly used in power tools, such as those discussed in Reese. Accordingly, ample evidence is provided showing that pouch-type batteries are not only a commonly known alternative to cylindrical batteries for use in power tools, but that they would be a commonly known battery-type for the flat/rectangular batteries shown in Reese. Indeed, Seefeldt provides some reasons one would choose a pouch battery for those uses. Thus, use of a pouch-type battery in Reese is more than mere use of a known alternative battery for its intended purpose, its use is directly motivated by the common knowledge of the benefits of power density, low heat, etc., of such battery cells. While Seefeldt highlights some known concerns with using pouch-type batteries, “[a] known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it is described as inferior to some other product for the same use.” MPEP 2145X(D)(1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm M-F.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights