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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/01/2026. These drawings are approved.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-11 and 13-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7-11 and 13-17, line 1, the examiner suggests the applicant to change “system” to -- power tool and rechargeable battery system -- as suggested by the applicant in the Remark filed by the applicant on 06/01/2026.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is clear that the lock includes first, second and third levers, wherein the first lever has a first hook and a second hook. Also, it is clear that the lock can reversibly move from a locking portion into a releasing position such that the rechargeable battery is connected to the power tool in the locking position and the rechargeable battery is removable from the power tool in the releasing position. However, it is not clear how the first, second and third levers along with the first and second hook of the first lever are functionally working as the lock in order to place the chargeable battery in the locking position or the released position related to the power tool. The first, second and third levers along with the first and second hook of the first lever are doing nothing.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marx et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0295506 A1).
Marx discloses a system comprising: (claims 7 and 12) a power tool 10; and a rechargeable battery 54 for supplying the power tool 10 with electrical energy, the power tool 10 including a lock 400 for releasably connecting the rechargeable battery 54 to the power tool 10, the lock including a first lever 404 and a second lever 408 connected together in an articulated manner (see Fig. 15), such that the lock 400 is reversibly movable from a locking position (see Fig. 15A) into a releasing position (see Fig. 15C), wherein, in the locking position, the rechargeable battery 54 is firmly connected to the power tool 10 and, in the releasing position, the rechargeable battery 54 is removable from the power tool 10; (claim 9) wherein the second lever 408 is configured at least partially in an elastic manner because the second lever 408 is a spring (see Paragraph [0062]); (claim 10) wherein the lock 400 is configured as a toggle mechanism; (claim 11) wherein the system further comprising at least one elastic stop 142 (see Paragraph [0050]) between the rechargeable battery 54 and power tool 10, the at least one elastic stop 142 being positioned opposite the lock 400 (see Fig. 2).
However, the lock 400 of Marx is included in the power tool 10 and not included in the rechargeable battery 54.
On the other hand, whether the lock 400 is included in the power tool 10 or the rechargeable battery 54, the function of the lock will remain the same. Therefore, the placement of the lock 400 only deals with the rearrangement of part.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system taught by Marx such that it would have the lock included in the rechargeable battery as taught by the instant invention because whether the lock is included in the rechargeable battery (as taught by the instant invention) or in the power tool (as taught by Marx), the rechargeable battery and the power tool will be connected together by the lock. Therefore, the placement of the lock only deals with the reversal of working parts of the system. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAE MOON HYEON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/hmh/
/Hae Moon Hyeon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights