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 are objected to because of the following problems.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“13” for four sockets described in Paragraph [0056], line 2 and
“26b” for a second end described in paragraph [0060], line 2.
Figures 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 include two of the same reference number “14”, which are pointing at two different places. Also, two of the same reference number “26a” are pointing at two different places.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph [0059], line 1, the examiner suggests the applicant to change “The locking element 18” to -- The locking apparatus 18 -- because all other places in the specification describe, “locking apparatus 18”.
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 7-11 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.
Claim 7, line 1 recites, “A system comprising:”. It is not clear what system that the claimed invention is referring to since there are so many different types of systems exist in the world.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0108884 A1).
Chen discloses a system comprising: (claim 7) a power tool (not shown); and a rechargeable battery 10 for supplying the power tool with electrical energy, the rechargeable battery 10 including a lock 40 for releasably connecting the rechargeable battery 10 to the power tool, the lock 40 including a first lever 62 and a second lever 52 connected together in an articulated manner, such that the lock 40 is reversibly movable from a locking position (see Fig. 5) into a releasing position (see Fig. 6), wherein, in the locking position (see Fig. 5), the rechargeable battery is firmly connected to the power tool (see Paragraph [0021]) and, in the releasing position, the rechargeable battery 10 is removable from the power tool (see Paragraph [0022]); (claim 8) wherein the system further comprising a third lever 53 for reversibly actuating the second lever 52 from a first position into a second position; and (claim 10) wherein the lock 40 is configured as a toggle mechanism.
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses a rechargeable battery 10 for supplying a power tool (not shown) with electrical energy, the rechargeable battery 10 comprising a lock 40 for releasably connecting the rechargeable battery 10 to the power tool, the lock 40 including a first lever 60 and a second lever 50 connected together in an articulated manner, such that the lock 40 is reversibly movable from a locking position (see Fig. 6) into a releasing position (see Fig. 5), wherein, in the locking position, the rechargeable battery 10 is firmly connected to the power tool (see Paragraph [0021]) and, in the releasing position, the rechargeable battery is removable from the power tool (see Paragraph [0022]).
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) 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0108884 A1) in view of Turner et al (US 6,729,413 B2).
Regarding claim 9 reciting, “the second lever is configured at least partially in an elastic manner”, Chen does not disclose the second lever 52 being at least partially in an elastic manner.
On the other hand, claim 9 is simply reciting the material property of the second lever without reciting what specific function or what kind of problem this material property of the second lever provides or solves. Therefore, the second lever being at least partially in an elastic manner only deals with the use of preferred material.
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 second lever taught by Chen such that it would be at least partially in an elastic manner as taught by the instant invention because it only deals with the use of preferred material since the main function of the second lever does not change whether the second lever being at least partially in an elastic manner or not. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, Chen does not disclose “at least one elastic stop between the rechargeable battery and power tool, the at least one elastic stop being positioned opposite the lock”.
On the other hand, Turner discloses a rechargeable battery 30 for supplying a power tool 10 with electrical energy, the rechargeable battery 30 comprising a lock for releasably connecting the rechargeable battery 30 to the power tool 10, the lock including a first lever 76 and a second lever 78 such that the lock is reversibly movable from a locking position into a releasing position, wherein, in the locking position, the rechargeable battery 30 is firmly connected to the power tool 10 and, in the releasing position, the rechargeable battery 30 is removable from the power tool 10; and at least one elastic stop 70, 72 between the rechargeable battery 30 and power too 10, the at least one elastic stop 70, 72 being positioned opposite the lock (see Figs. 2 and 3) to assist in guiding the rechargeable battery 30 with the power tool 10 (see column 3, lines 29-46).
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 Chen such that it would have at least one elastic stop between the rechargeable battery and power tool as taught by Turner to assist in guiding the rechargeable battery with the power tool.
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