DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 2026-06-09 is acknowledged. Claims 5-20 are withdrawn as pertaining to non-elected inventions.
Claims 1-20 are pending; Claims 1-4 are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moreau (US Patent No. 9,254,032 to Moreau et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Moreau teaches:
a battery cradle comprising a power tool battery 5 and a sleeve 10 configured to receive the battery and surround a portion of the battery (Fig. 12, column 5)
a clasp 165 coupled to the sleeve and movable between an open positioned and a closed position, wherein in the open position the clasp does not overlay a portion of the battery that it does overlay when closed to secure the battery within the sleeve (Fig. 12, column 10, lines 51-65)
a tether receiver 120 located on at least one of the sleeve and the clasp and configured to be attached to a tether to secure the battery to the tether (Fig. 12, column 5)
PNG
media_image1.png
812
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Moreau teaches:
embodiments with a buckle 165 comprising a pin or tongue, and a bar and frame, to clasp or unclasp the strap end to the sleeve (column 11 line 11)
Regarding Claim 4, Moreau teaches:
a strap 160 that is a “front arm” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, being both in the front, and a peripheral, protruding member of the sleeve, that overlays the battery when the clasp is closed (Fig. 12)
and the tether receiver, which is attached to the sleeve, is coupled through the sleeve to the strap end 164 through the buckle pin/tongue (Fig. 12, column 11, line 11)
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreau (US Patent No. 9,254,032 to Moreau et al.) in view of Tirone (US 2014/0329119 to Tirone et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Moreau does not explicitly teach:
the sleeve comprising a bumper
Tirone, however, from the same field of invention, teaches a rubber boot for a battery, fitting onto the outside of a battery pack (Figs. 1-3, abstract). It would have been obvious to provide a rubber bump along the sidewalls and bottom of the sleeve in Moreau with the motivation to protect the battery pack from external shocks, as described in Tirone. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent No. 8,011,541
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights