DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The reply filed 07/27/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1 and 20 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1–21 are pending.
The objection to FIG. 22A has been rendered moot by Applicant's amendment replacing reference character 126a with 176a.
The objection to the title has been rendered moot by Applicant's amendment of the title to "PORTABLE CHARGING STATION WITH POWER TOOL BATTERY PACK INTERFACES FOR BATTERY PACKS."
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is withdrawn, consistent with the agreement reached at the 06/16/2026 Examiner interview, where Applicant directed the Examiner to ¶s [0198 – 0199] and FIGS. 22A and 27A as providing a standard for "oblique."
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of July 27, 2026 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) is withdrawn. Claims 1–6 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over FRY in view of PELED (US 2020/0249638 A1). The rejection of claims 7–21 is maintained, with a revised basis for claim 7 and claims 8–16.
On pages 9–10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is allowable over FRY because FRY does not disclose "a housing having a first housing portion, a second housing portion, and a sealed partition isolating the first housing portion from the second housing portion," with the battery in the first portion and the power tool battery pack interface in the second. Applicant points to FIG. 5, arguing the charging ports 70, 72 and battery 14 are accessible through the same compartment when lid 62 is open.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), every limitation must be found, expressly or under a legally correct BRI, in a single reference (MPEP § 2111.01). Where a single reference does not disclose every limitation, the limitation may still be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining that reference with analogous art, either in the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (MPEP § 2141.01(a)), where the combination applies a known technique to a known device to yield a predictable result (MPEP § 2143(A), (D)).
FRY discloses two housing portions: a base portion 50, with wheels 26 and the battery receptacle 12 holding battery 14 (¶s [0033 – 0034, 0042]), and a top portion 54, with the battery pack charging ports 70, 72 and the charging circuit supported by the top portion 54 (¶s [0034, 0049 – 0050]). Nothing in FRY characterizes this boundary as a "partition," and nothing describes it as "sealed." PELED (US 2020/0249638 A1) discloses a gasket-based sealed partition wall (gasket 43) separating internal compartments (¶s [0076 – 0077]). Adding PELED's sealing at FRY's base-portion/top-portion boundary applies a known sealing technique to a known two-portion housing, yielding a debris- and moisture-sealed boundary between the battery and the interface. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to make this combination to protect FRY's battery-pack interfaces, exposed at a removable joint (¶[0045]), from environmental ingress during outdoor or job-site use, consistent with FRY's purpose of housing battery packs for charging in a portable station.
Applicant's argument is persuasive as to the rejection of claim 1–6 as it stood in the previous Office Action. FRY alone does not disclose the "sealed partition" limitation, and the § 102(a)(1) rejection is not maintained in that form. Claim 1, and claims 2–6 which depend from it without separate substantive argument, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over FRY in view of PELED, for the reasons above. The amendment adding "sealed partition" necessitated this ground, so the rejection may be made FINAL as to claims 1–6.
On pages 10–11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that incorporating KENNARD's door 4 into FRY would change the manner in which a user accesses FRY's battery 14, charging ports 70/72, and storage bin 66, such that the modification would render FRY unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and change its principle of operation, citing MPEP §§ 2143.01(V)–(VI) and In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Under MPEP §§ 2143.01(V)–(VI), whether a proposed modification renders the primary reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or changes its principle of operation turns on what the combined teachings would have suggested to a PHOSITA, not whether the secondary reference's structure could be bodily incorporated into the primary reference unchanged. Under MPEP § 2145(III)–(IV), a differing configuration for achieving a similar function does not by itself defeat combinability.
Substituting one door/access configuration for another does not by itself require a complete redesign that eliminates FRY's functionality. The underlying function, secure and accessible storage and charging of power tool battery packs in a portable housing, remains available whether that storage is accessed from the top or the side, just as a front-loading and a top-loading appliance both wash clothes. The rejection is based on what KENNARD's teaching of a hinged, lockable door pivoting about a height-axis pivot axis would have suggested to a PHOSITA modifying FRY's access arrangement, not on preserving FRY's specific top-access geometry unchanged. FRY does not describe top-access via lid 62 as essential to charging, cooling, portability, or any other claimed function. Applicant's Remarks do not identify any function of FRY that a side-hinged door would defeat beyond the generic assertion that the manner of access would change, and a change in manner of access alone does not render the device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change its principle of operation.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of claim 7 under §103 over FRY in view of KENNARD is maintained on this ground. Claims 8–16, argued only as depending from claim 7 with no separate substantive argument, are maintained for the same reason.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that "the door 4 of Kennard is not opposite the handles 10. Rather, the door 4 is on a side adjacent the handles 10," disputing the citation that "KENNARD discloses the door being opposite the handle".
Under MPEP § 707.07(f), a rejection citation must actually and specifically support the claim language relied upon, not merely relate to the same general subject matter as the cited passage. Where a specific citation does not withstand challenge, the same limitation may still be supported by a properly constructed combination under 35 U.S.C. §103, reflecting what the combined teachings would have suggested to a PHOSITA rather than bodily incorporation of one reference into another (MPEP § 2145(III)–(IV), In re Keller), and applying a known technique to a known device to achieve a predictable result (MPEP §2143(A), (D)).
KENNARD's ¶[0089] identifies reference numeral 10 as a handle recessed into a side wall of housing 2 (FIGS. 1, 9, 10), not the front face. The lockable doors 4 are on the front face, in two columns of compartments (¶[0094], FIG. 5). The side wall carrying handle 10 and the front face carrying doors 4 are adjacent, perpendicular faces, not opposite faces. Applicant's characterization is correct: the cited disclosure does not actually state or show a door positioned opposite the handle.
The limitation is supported by combining FRY, KENNARD, and MARTINEZ. FRY discloses handle 30, a telescoping handle (inner tube 38, outer tube 42, holding member 46) extended by pulling holding member 46 upward, coupled to the housing and extending along a height axis (¶s [0033 – 0034]). KENNARD discloses a door including a hinge pivotably connecting the door to the housing about a pivot axis extending along the height axis: the door edges in FIGS. 1, 5, 9, and 10 show a pull-tab along one vertical edge of each door 4 and a continuous, unbroken line along the opposite vertical edge, consistent with a hinge running along that edge. MARTINEZ (FIG. 19) discloses a door 2222 positioned opposite a handle 2234 on a storage bag 2220 (¶s [0130 – 0132]).
Applicant's argument is persuasive as to the KENNARD-alone citation for "door opposite the handle," and that citation is withdrawn. The limitation is supported on the present record by a three-reference combination: claim 7, and claims 8–16 which depend from it without separate substantive argument, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over FRY in view of KENNARD and MARTINEZ. MARTINEZ is already of record in this prosecution, previously applied to claims 6 and 14, and its application to claim 7 for a distinct teaching is a new application of an already-of-record reference rather than a wholly new one.
On pages 11–12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that incorporating KOHLER's sealed-carrier concept into FRY would eliminate FRY's battery accessibility, rendering FRY unsuitable for its intended purpose and changing its principle of operation, citing MPEP §§ 2143.01(V)–(VI), In re Gordon, and In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959).
Under MPEP §2143.01(V)–(VI), whether a proposed modification renders the primary reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or changes its principle of operation turns on what the combined teachings would have suggested to a PHOSITA, not whether the secondary reference's structure could be bodily incorporated into the primary reference unchanged. Under MPEP §2145(III)–(IV), a differing configuration for achieving a similar function does not by itself defeat combinability. The claim's own language also controls what the modification must achieve, so an argument premised on a broader modification than the claim requires does not accurately test the rejection.
Claim 17 recites a housing "at least partially defining a sealed internal cavity therein," not a fully or hermetically sealed housing, and not a limitation requiring the battery to be permanently inaccessible. Applicant's argument assumes the modification requires enclosing FRY's entire storage compartment, including the user-removable battery 14, within a sealed cavity that eliminates all access, but the rejection as drafted proposes incorporating KOHLER's sealed carrier concept for the internal charging circuitry specifically, consistent with claim 17's own "at least partially" qualifier, not for the entire FRY device or for battery 14's removability. Read against the claim's actual scope, the proposed modification does not eliminate the accessibility function Applicant relies on, and Applicant's Remarks do not address the "at least partially" language.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of claim 17 under §103 over FRY in view of KOHLER is maintained. Claims 18–21, argued only as depending from claim 17 with no separate substantive argument, are maintained for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRY et al. (US 20150171632 A1) in view of PELED (US 2020/0249638 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, FRY discloses a portable charging station comprising: a housing (see ¶[0032]: “FIG. 1 shows a battery charger and power supply device 10”; and ¶[0033]: “The power device 10 includes…a housing 22…”).
Furthermore, FRY discloses the housing includes a first housing portion (base portion 50) and a second housing portion (top portion 54) (see FIG. 1; ¶[0034]: "The housing 22 includes a base portion 50 and a top portion 54.").
FRY further discloses a handle coupled to the housing and extending along a height axis of the portable charging station (see ¶[0033]: “the handle 30 is a telescoping handle movable between an extended position (FIG. 1) and a collapsed position (FIG.10)”; and FIG. 1 — shows the handle 30 coupled to and extending vertically along the height axis of the housing 22).
Furthermore, FRY discloses a charging circuit disposed in the housing, the charging circuit including a rechargeable battery disposed in the first housing portion (see ¶s [0033, 0042]: battery receptacle 12 positioned in base portion 50, receiving battery 14; and ¶[0055]: second charging circuit 244, electrically connected to and controlling the charging scheme for battery 14).
FRY further discloses a power tool battery pack interface electrically connected to the charging circuit, the power tool battery pack interface defining an insertion axis, the insertion axis extending along the height axis (see ¶[0035]: “The first battery pack port 70 includes an insertion hole 71 to receive tower style battery packs”; ¶[0040]: “The battery pack ports 70, 72 include terminals (FIG. 5) that connect to the terminals of the battery packs 86, 90”; and FIG. 5 — shows the battery pack port 70 oriented to receive the tower-style first battery pack 86 along the height axis of the housing 22).
Finally, FRY discloses a door including a hinge connected to the housing, the door pivotable between an open position and a closed position (see ¶[0034]: “The lid 62 is coupled to the top portion 54 of the power device 10 by a hinge. The lid 62 is pivotable between a closed position (FIG. 2) and an open position (FIG. 3)”). The limitation that the door is intersected by the insertion axis in the closed position is inherent to the lid 62 and battery pack port 70 established in FRY. The lid 62 covers the storage compartment 58 in the closed position, and the insertion axis of the tower-style battery pack port 70 extends vertically through the compartment and necessarily intersects the lid 62 when the lid is closed.
FRY does not expressly disclose that the first housing portion and the second housing portion are isolated from one another by a sealed partition.
PELED discloses a housing having a first housing portion and a second housing portion, and a sealed partition isolating the first housing portion from the second housing portion (see ¶s [0075 – 0076]: battery compartment 30 housing batteries 14, isolated by partition wall 36 from the remainder of moisture-tight enclosure 20).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify FRY's housing to isolate the first housing portion from the second housing portion by a sealed partition, as taught by PELED, in order to protect the battery within the first housing portion from debris or water entering through the removable joint connecting the first housing portion to the second housing portion. This is particularly useful where a user opens the second housing portion in inclement weather to retrieve tools or battery packs, exposing it to rain that could otherwise reach the battery in the first housing portion which could impact or damage the battery if it is exposed to water.
Regarding Claim 2, FRY discloses the housing includes a cavity defined therein, the cavity surrounded by an edge of the housing, a plane coincident with the edge extends uninterrupted over the cavity (see FIG. 3 — the upper rim (the edge) of the storage compartment 58 (the cavity) defines a planar perimeter; when the lid 62 is in the open position, the geometric plane coincident with this rim extends across the opening of the cavity without interruption by any housing structures).
Regarding Claim 3, FRY discloses the power tool battery pack interface is one of a plurality of power tool battery pack interfaces arranged in at least two rows, and each of the plurality of power tool battery pack interfaces is electrically connected to the charging circuit and includes a respective insertion axis, each insertion axis extending along the height axis (see ¶[0034]: “the storage compartment 58 includes…a first battery pack charging port 70 (FIG. 5), a second battery pack charging port 72 (FIG. 5)”; ¶[0035]: “The first battery pack port 70 includes an insertion hole 71 to receive tower style battery packs”; ¶[0036]: “The second battery pack port 72 includes guide rails 75 to receive slide-on style battery packs”; and FIG. 5 — shows ports 70 and 72 positioned in the storage compartment 58, each oriented to receive battery packs along the height axis).
Regarding Claim 4, FRY discloses the power tool battery pack interface includes a first port configured to receive a first power tool battery pack and a second port configured to receive a second power tool battery pack, the first port is configured to deliver power having a different voltage than the second port, and the insertion axis corresponding to at least one of the first port and the second port (see ¶[0035]: “The first battery pack port 70…is configured to receive a first battery pack 86”; ¶[0036]: “The second battery pack port 72…is configured to receive a second battery pack 90”; and ¶[0038]: “the first battery pack 86 is a 12 volt battery and the second battery pack 90 is an 18 volt battery”).
Regarding Claim 5, FRY discloses a latch engageable with an edge of the door opposite the hinge to sealingly secure the door in the closed position (see ¶[0034]: “The lid 62 is coupled to the top portion 54 of the power device 10 by a hinge. The lid 62 is pivotable between a closed position (FIG. 2) and an open position (FIG. 3)”; and ¶[0045]: “the locking mechanism 154 includes two latches 158 (only one of which is shown). The latches 158 securely couple the top portion 54 to the base portion 50”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRY et al. (US 20150171632 A1) in view of MARTINEZ et al. (US 20170182652 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, FRY is silent to a door including a plurality of non-powered power tool battery pack interfaces on a side of the door opposite the housing.
MARTINEZ discloses a door including a plurality of non-powered power tool battery pack interfaces on a side of the door opposite the housing (see ¶[0007]: “a tool box may generally include…a power tool battery charger; and a mounting arrangement between the lid and the battery charger to mount the battery charger to the inner surface of the lid in an operational position”; and ¶[0008]: “the mounting arrangement includes a projection on one of the inner surface of the lid and the battery charger and a recess defined on the other of the inner surface of the lid and the battery charger, the projection being engageable in the recess to mount the charger to the lid”).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate MARTINEZ’s battery charger mounting arrangement onto the inner surface of FRY’s portable charging station’s door, to mount the battery charger to the inner surface of the lid in an operational position, providing accessible non-powered battery pack interfaces on the inner door surface within the housing.
Claim(s) 7 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRY et al. (US 20150171632 A1) in view of KENNARD et al. (US 20230163608 A1), and further in view of MARTINEZ et al. (US 20170182652 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, FRY discloses a portable charging station comprising a housing (¶s [0032 – 0033]: battery charger and power supply device 10 including housing 22);
a handle coupled to the housing and extending along a height axis of the portable charging station (¶s [0033 – 0034]: telescoping handle 30, movable between an extended position and a collapsed position, coupled to and extending vertically along the height axis of housing 22);
a charging circuit disposed in the housing, the charging circuit including a rechargeable battery (¶[0055]: second charging circuit 244 electrically connected to and controlling the charging scheme for battery 14); and
a power tool battery pack interface electrically connected to the charging circuit (¶s [0035, 0040]: first battery pack port 70 including an insertion hole 71 to receive tower style battery packs, battery pack ports 70, 72 including terminals connecting to the terminals of battery packs 86, 90).
FRY does not expressly disclose a door including a hinge pivotably connecting the door to the housing about a pivot axis extending along the height axis, the door opposite the handle.
KENNARD discloses a door including a hinge pivotably connecting the door to the housing, the pivot axis extending along the height axis (FIG. 1: door 4 pivotably connected to housing 2 by a hinge, pivoting about a vertical hinge axis extending along the height axis of housing 2).
A PHOSITA would have been motivated, before the effective filing date, to modify the housing of FRY's portable charging station to include a door and hinge pivotably connecting the door to the housing, as taught by KENNARD, to securely house power tool battery packs within individual compartments while being charged.
KENNARD does not expressly disclose the door opposite the handle.
MARTINEZ discloses a door opposite a handle (FIG. 19: door 2222 opposite handle 2234).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the door of FRY's portable charging station to be positioned opposite the handle, as taught by MARTINEZ, to keep the door's swing path clear of the handle.
Regarding Claim 8, FRY discloses a plurality of power tool battery pack interfaces arranged in at least two columns, each column including a plurality of power tool battery pack interfaces (see ¶[0082]: “The power device 1300 includes two power devices 1100a, 1100b coupled together with a handle 304. The two power devices 1100a, 1100b are similar to the power device 1100 described above”; and FIG. 19 — shows power device 1300 with battery pack interfaces arranged in two columns on opposing sides of handle 304).
Regarding Claim 9, FRY discloses the first column including a first power tool battery pack interface defining a first insertion axis and the second column including a second power tool battery pack interface defining a second insertion axis, the first insertion axis oblique relative to the second insertion axis (see ¶[0035]: “… the first battery pack 86 is a tower style battery pack. Accordingly, the first battery pack port 70 includes an insertion hole 71 to receive tower style battery packs”; and ¶[0036]: “… the second battery pack 90 is a slide-on style battery pack. Accordingly, the second battery pack port 72 includes guide rails 75 to receive slide-on style battery packs”).
Regarding Claim 10, FRY discloses the power tool battery pack interface including a first port configured to receive a first power tool battery pack and a second port configured to receive a second power tool battery pack, the first port configured to deliver power having a different voltage than the second port (see ¶[0035]: “The first battery pack port 70 is configured to receive a first battery pack 86”; ¶[0036]: “The second battery pack port 72 is configured to receive a second battery pack 90”; and ¶[0038]: “the first battery pack 86 is a 12 volt battery and the second battery pack 90 is an 18 volt battery”).
Regarding Claim 11, FRY is silent to a plurality of doors opposite the handle, the plurality of doors including the door.
KENNARD discloses a plurality of doors opposite the handle, the plurality of doors including the door (see FIG. 1 — shows a plurality of doors 4 on the side of housing 2 opposite handle 10).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate KENNARD’s plurality of individual compartment doors into FRY’s portable charging station, to securely maintain each power tool battery pack in its respective compartment while being charged.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, FRY is silent to a latch engageable with an edge of the door opposite the hinge to sealingly secure the door to the housing, and a portion of the door configured to receive a lock therethrough to lock the door to the housing.
KENNARD discloses a latch engageable with an edge of the door opposite the hinge to sealingly secure the door to the housing, and a portion of the door configured to receive a lock therethrough to lock the door to the housing (see FIG. 1 — shows the hinge on one vertical side of door 4 and the latching mechanism on the opposing vertical edge; and ¶[0080]: “… a padlock may be attached to an appropriate padlock attachment orifice. A recess 16 may be additionally provided in the door 4 so that the metal tab of the padlock does not protrude past the overall extremities of the housing 1…”).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate KENNARD’s padlock orifice and door recess arrangement into FRY’s portable charging station’s door, to secure the door to the housing while protecting the padlock from damage caused by protrusion beyond the housing extremities.
Regarding Claim 14, FRY discloses a plurality of wheels rotatably coupled to the housing (see ¶[0033]: “two wheels 26 (only one of which is shown in FIG. 1)”; and ¶[0034]: “The base portion 50 generally supports the components of the power device 10 and includes the wheels 26. The wheels 26 facilitate movement of the power device 10 along a surface”).
FRY is silent to the door including a plurality of non-powered power tool battery pack interfaces on a side of the door opposite the plurality of wheels.
MARTINEZ discloses the door including a plurality of non-powered power tool battery pack interfaces on a side of the door opposite the plurality of wheels (see ¶[0007]: “a tool box may generally include…a power tool battery charger; and a mounting arrangement between the lid and the battery charger to mount the battery charger to the inner surface of the lid in an operational position”; and ¶[0008]: “the mounting arrangement includes a projection on one of the inner surface of the lid and the battery charger and a recess defined on the other of the inner surface of the lid and the battery charger, the projection being engageable in the recess to mount the charger to the lid”).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate MARTINEZ’s battery charger mounting arrangement onto the inner surface of FRY’s portable charging station’s door, to mount the battery charger to the inner surface of the lid in an operational position, providing accessible non-powered battery pack interfaces on the inner door surface within the housing.
Regarding Claim 15, FRY is silent to a plurality of vents defined in the housing.
KENNARD discloses a plurality of vents defined in the housing (see ¶[0085]: “at least one ventilation cutouts 7”; and FIG. 1 — shows ventilation cutouts 7 defined in housing 2).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate KENNARD’s ventilation cutouts into FRY’s portable charging station’s housing, to ensure that power tool batteries, which generate considerable heat during the charging process, do not overheat.
Regarding Claim 16, FRY discloses the charging circuit further including an inverter electrically connected to the rechargeable battery (see ¶[0050]: “the illustrated power device 10 includes…a first charging circuit 242, a second charging circuit 244, an inverter 246”; and ¶[0053]: “The inverter 246 is connected to the DC power input 214, the battery 14, the battery packs 86, 90, the AC power output connector 202, and the controller 234”).
Claim(s) 17 – 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRY et al. (US 20150171632 A1) in view of KOHLER et al. (US 20190372354 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, FRY discloses a portable charging station comprising a housing and a handle coupled to the housing and extending along a height axis of the portable charging station (see ¶[0033]: “The power device 10 includes … a housing 22… a handle 30; the handle 30 is a telescoping handle movable between an extended position (FIG. 1) and a collapsed position (FIG. 10). The handle 30 includes an inner tube 38 and an outer tube 42”; and FIG. 1 — shows handle 30 coupled to and extending vertically along the height axis of housing 22).
FRY further discloses a charging circuit disposed in the sealed internal cavity, the charging circuit including a rechargeable battery (see ¶[0033]: “The power device 10 includes a battery receptacle 12 to receive the battery 14”; and ¶[0042]: “The battery receptacle 12 is positioned in the base portion 50 of the housing 22”).
Furthermore, FRY discloses a plurality of wheels rotatably coupled to the housing (see ¶[0033]: “The power device 10 includes … two wheels 26 (only one of which is shown in FIG. 1)”; and ¶[0034]: “The base portion 50 generally supports the components of the power device 10 and includes the wheels 26. The wheels 26 facilitate movement of the power device 10 along a surface”).
FRY is silent to a housing at least partially defining a sealed internal cavity therein, and an interface wall including a power tool battery pack interface, the interface wall cooperating with the housing to enclose the sealed internal cavity, the power tool battery pack interface electrically connected to the charging circuit.
KOHLER discloses a housing at least partially defining a sealed internal cavity therein (see ¶[0182]: “the carrier 200 includes a housing 202 ... The carrier housing 202 includes side walls. The carrier 200 may also include a door or cover 204”).
KOHLER further discloses an interface wall cooperating with the housing to enclose the sealed internal cavity and including a power tool battery pack interface electrically connected to the charging circuit (see ¶[0182]: “The carrier housing 202 includes a plurality of receptacles 208. Each receptacle 208 is configured to receive a rechargeable, removable battery pack 300. The cover 204 may be configured to allow access to a plurality of the receptacles 208”; and ¶[0184]: “each receptacle 208 includes an interface for mating with the battery pack 300…The receptacle interface includes a terminal block 256 for electrically coupling the battery pack 300 to the internal circuitry of the carrier 200”).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate KOHLER’s sealed carrier housing with battery pack receptacle interface wall into FRY’s portable charging station’s framework, to provide a sealed internal cavity protecting the rechargeable battery and charging circuits from environmental exposure during transport and worksite use.
Regarding Claim 18, FRY discloses a plurality of wheels (see ¶[0034]: “The housing 22 includes a base portion 50 and a top portion 54. The base portion 50 generally supports the components of the power device 10 and includes the wheels 26”).
FRY is silent to the interface wall defines a stepped surface.
KOHLER discloses an interface wall defines a stepped surface (see ¶[0182]: “The carrier 200 may also include a door or cover 204”; and FIG. 41 — shows a tiered profile of the interface area to accommodate battery packs and the door 204).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate KOHLER’s stepped interface wall into FRY’s portable charging station’s framework to provide a protected internal mounting area for battery packs.
Regarding Claim 19, FRY discloses a first port configured to receive a first power tool battery pack and a second port configured to receive a second power tool battery pack, the first port configured to deliver power having a different voltage than the second port (see ¶[0035]: “The first battery pack port 70 is configured to receive a first battery pack 86”; ¶[0036]: “The second battery pack port 72 is configured to receive a second battery pack 90”; and ¶[0038]: “the first battery pack 86 is a 12 volt battery and the second battery pack 90 is an 18 volt battery”).
Regarding Claim 20, FRY discloses the power tool battery pack interface is one of a plurality of power tool battery pack interfaces arranged in at least two rows, and wherein each of the plurality of power tool battery pack interfaces is electrically connected to the charging circuit (see ¶[0034]: “the storage compartment 58 includes…a first battery pack charging port 70 (FIG. 5), a second battery pack charging port 72 (FIG. 5)”; and ¶[0040]: “The battery pack ports 70, 72 include terminals (FIG. 5) that connect to the terminals of the battery packs 86, 90”).
Regarding Claim 21, FRY is silent to at least one of the rows cooperating with the stepped surface to define a battery receiving trench.
KOHLER discloses at least one of the rows cooperates with the stepped surface to define a battery receiving trench (see FIGS. 41-43 — the recessed/stepped portion of the carrier 200, when populated with a row of battery interfaces, defines a longitudinal channel or "trench" that receives the battery packs).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate KOHLER’s recessed mounting geometry into FRY’s housing to provide a protected location for the batteries.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHANN DJANAL-MANN whose telephone number is (571)272-4697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 17:00.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-2312. 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.
/D. JOHANN DJANAL-MANN/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights