DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Braun et al. (US 5,819,513).
Regarding claim 1, Braun teaches an electrically-driven power unit of a compact battery pack, comprising a motor 70 and a battery pack (upper housing/batteries) 22/40/42;
wherein the motor 70 is mounted on a base (support plate) 118;
the battery pack is supported on an upper part of the motor through a supporting frame (lower housing) 24;
an arch-shaped supporting portion (generally motor receptacle 104) matched with the upper part of the motor is formed on an upper part of the supporting frame 24 (Fig.6);
a concave portion (formed by bridge section 50) matched with the arch-shaped supporting portion 104 is arranged at a bottom of the battery pack; and
the arch-shaped supporting portion of the supporting frame 24 is supported in the concave portion 50 of the battery pack (Fig.3).
PNG
media_image1.png
455
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, a first mounting portion and a second mounting portion are respectively arranged on both sides of the arch-shaped supporting portion on the supporting frame (i.e., corresponding to parts of upper housing 22 forming first and second battery receptacles 36 & 38), and areas of the bottom of the battery pack located on both sides of the concave portion are respectively supported on the first mounting portion and the second mounting portion (i.e., bottom portions of first and second batteries 40 & 42; Fig.3).
Regarding claim 9, an output shaft 72 of the motor is in a…vertical direction.
Regarding claim 10, Braun teaches a working machine (lawnmower) 10 comprising the electrically-driven power unit of a compact battery pack according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Reasons for indication of allowable subject matter were given in the 01 April 2026 Office Action, pp.4-5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Braun’s battery receptacles are positioned on opposite sides of the motor (Response, p.5). The implication seems to be that Braun does not teach “the battery back is supported on an upper part of the motor through a supporting frame” (claim 1). But, the claim language does not necessarily exclude Braun’s structure since Braun’s batteries 40/42 are, relative to motor 70, supported on an “upper part” thereof, through the supporting frame (lower housing) 24 (Fig.3). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues Braun does not disclose an arch-shaped supporting portion located at the bottom of either battery receptacle. But, this is not what claim 1 recites. Rather, claim 1 recites “a concave portion matched with the arch-shaped supporting portion is arranged at a bottom of the battery pack.” Braun’s concave portion (formed by bridge section 50), matched with the arch-shaped supporting portion 104, is “arranged at a bottom of the battery pack” in that the concave recess, cavity, or receiving portion formed by bridge section 50 encompasses regions at the bottom of the batteries 40, 42 (Fig.3). Again, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues Braun’s bridge section 50 is merely a structural member connecting first battery receptable 36 and second battery receptacle 38, and that Braun does not describe the bridge section as a concave recess, cavity or receiving portion that receives the arch-shaped supporting portion (Response, p.5). This is not persuasive. Braun teaches a concave portion formed by bridge section 50. That is, as seen in cross-section Fig.3, the bridge section delineates a concave portion comprising a “concave recess, cavity, or receiving portion” [sic]. This concave portion is “matched” with the arch-shaped supporting portion (generally, motor receptacle 104; Figs.6-7). Per MPEP 2131, the elements in the prior must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Although Braun does not use the exact claim terminology, his elements nevertheless correspond structurally to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights