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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanke (US 2023/0050963).
At para 0004, Stanke summarizes his invention, and a major part of it is the core features of the instant invention:
“[0004] Thus, there is a need for a power supply regulator that regulates input power to a power tool from a battery pack. It would be advantageous to regulate the power input into a power tool so that the power tool may be optimally operated regardless of the battery pack or the output power requirements. Additionally, it would be advantageous to regulate power output from a battery pack charger to a battery pack so the battery pack may be charged at a rated voltage, regardless of the voltage rating of the battery pack charger.”
At para 0058, Stanke describes how the charger can charge batteries with different rated voltages, with an explicit discussion of both boost (step up) and buck (step down) charging capability.
“[0058] The power regulation unit 270 may also regulate power received from a battery pack charger that charges the battery cells of the battery pack 120. In some embodiments, the power regulation circuitry 420 regulates a voltage received from the charger to a rated voltage of the battery pack 120. In some embodiments, the power regulation unit 270 may include additional circuitry (separate from the power regulation circuitry 420 that regulates the power output to the power tool) that regulates the power received from the charger. The power regulation unit 270 maintains compatibility between the battery pack 120 and a battery pack charger, even in the case that the charger is not rated at the same voltage as the battery pack 120. For example, the battery pack 120 may be rated as a 36 volt battery pack that has a 41 volt maximum charge capacity and the battery pack charger may be conventionally rated for an 18 volt battery pack (e.g., providing 20.5 volts for charging). The power regulation unit 270 is configured to, for example, step up the voltage (e.g., act as a boost circuit) during charging to provide a voltage that charges the battery pack 120. Additionally or alternatively, the power regulation unit 270 is configured to, for example, step down the voltage (e.g., act as a buck circuit) during charging to provide a voltage that charges the battery pack 120. FIG. 6A is a block diagram of a representative power regulation system 500 for a power tool battery pack according to one embodiment. The power regulation system 500 includes a power regulation unit 505 within a power tool 510 and a battery pack 515. The battery pack 515 provides input power 520 to the power regulation unit 505 within the power tool 510. The power regulation unit 505 regulates the input power 520 and outputs the regulated power as output power 525. The output power 525 powers, among other things, a motor (e.g., motor 275) so the power tool 100 may perform power tool operations.”
There is also at para 0077, a discussion of detecting of the type of battery that is connected, in order to provide appropriate buck or boost charging.
Parameters of the battery/its ratings, including voltage, can be requesting or communicated in a data exchange between the battery pack and the charging system.
“[0077] In step 1115, the controller 200 of the power tool 100 requests parameters (e.g., voltage, current capacities, etc.) from the battery pack 120. For example, battery pack 120 may be rated as an 18V battery pack and that information is communicated to the controller 200. In step 1120, the power tool 100 requests a battery output power profile from the battery pack 120. For example, the power tool 100 may request a higher or lower voltage than the normal operating voltage of the battery pack 120. In some embodiments, the power tool 100 may request a max voltage, the source impedance, and the overload behavior of the battery pack 120. For example, the max voltage may be the maximum rated voltage of the battery pack 120. If the power tool 100 requests the maximum voltage, then the controller 200 may send a turn-off signal to the power regulation unit 270. For example, the controller 200 may send a signal to a controller of the battery pack 120 to bypass the power regulation unit 270. The power regulation unit 270 can similarly be bypassed when located within a power tool or an adapter. In step 1125, the power regulation unit 270 provides the requested output power profile to the power tool 100, and the controller 200 of the power tool 100 receives the requested output power profile. In some embodiments, based on the output power profile, the power tool 100 is configured to negotiate values for voltage, current, impedance, overload behavior, etc., from the battery pack 120 that are different than standard or rated values for the battery pack 120 (e.g., higher voltage, different shutoff conditions, etc.). In step 1130, the power tool 100 begins its operation based on the negotiated values of the output power profile. Optionally, the power tool 100 may renegotiate the requested power profile during operation. Similar negotiations can occur between the battery pack 120 and a battery pack charger when the battery pack charger is trying to charge the battery pack.”
Regarding switches and diodes, these are standard elements of circuits that are employed numerous times at every stage of circuits. Stanke mentions switches 24 times and diodes 6 times, including a switching network, but more generally, they are ordinary building blocks of every complex circuit. While Stanke doesn’t go into the details of the circuit diagram, one can be assured that switches and diodes occur numerous times, likely in every major part of the circuit.
Regarding a second battery management system (claim 16) – this is merely an obvious duplication of parts, as one could use multiple versions of Stanke’s boost/buck battery charger connected to a common power system in order to charge multiple batteries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 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, Thomas K. Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/DANIEL A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights