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 . 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation “wherein the wall is designed to be curved,” rendering the claims indefinite. Particularly, it is wholly unclear what Applicant means by this phrase. Does the recited wall possess a curved shape or configuration? Or is the wall capable of being curved when pushed or pressed by an adjacent component? The written description does not provide any guidance beyond repeating the limitation. For the purposes of examination, any battery pack with a wall possessing a curved shape will be held to read on this limitation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See M.P.E.P. § 2172.01. The claim fails to recite any steps whatsoever and merely recites some of the structural limitations found in claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "batter back" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention lacks patentable utility. Specifically, claim 12 purports to recite a method in the preamble yet includes no method steps or limitations. Rather, the claim includes limitations drawn to an apparatus. The claim is inoperable because it provides no limitations indicating how the method is practiced whatsoever.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murui (US 2023/0046437 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murui discloses a battery pack device comprising:
at least one battery pack housing, in this case the battery pack (¶ [0018], Figs. 1, 2, & 4, ref. no. 31) having an interface side, in this case the upper part of the battery case that is provided with the engagement part (¶ [0039], Fig. 2, ref. no. 32);
at least one interface configured for an electrical and mechanical connection to a consumer, in this case the engagement part (¶ [0039], Fig. 2, ref. no. 32);
wherein the at least one interface is arranged on the interface side of the at least battery pack housing (see Fig. 2, ref. no. 32);
wherein the at least one interface includes at least one contact support, in this case the surfaces that define the slits (see annotated Fig. 2, ref. no. 321, below), that is arranged adjacent to a wall of the battery pack device, in this case the upper surface surrounding the slits (see annotated Fig. 2, ref. no. 321, below);
wherein the wall is designed to be curved, in this case the ends of the slits are rounded (see Fig. 2, ref. no. 321).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Murui further discloses that:
the at least one battery pack housing includes a first surface on the interface side (see annotated Fig. 2, below) and a second surface that is recessed relative to the first surface (see annotated Fig. 2, below); and
the wall is arranged at least partially in an area of the second surface, in this case the wall shares an edge with the second surface (see annotated Fig. 2, below) and is thus “partially in the area” of the second surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
600
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Murui further discloses that a part of the wall facing a mounting direction of the at least one surface is arranged in the area of the second surface, in this case the wall faces the downward mounting direction (¶ [0041], Fig. 3, ref. no. A1) and the wall shares an edge with the second surface (see annotated Fig. 2, above) and is thus “partially in the area” of the second surface.
Regarding claim 4, Murui further discloses that the area of the second surface is arranged on at least one side of the at the at least one interface facing a mounting direction of the interface, in this case the area of the second surface extends in the plane defined by both mounting directions (¶ [0041], Fig. 3, ref. nos. A1 & A2).
Regarding claim 5, Murui further discloses that the at least one interface includes at least one guide rail, in this case the extensions that define the insertion grooves (¶ [0041], Fig. 2, ref. no. 37), and at least one flexible unit arranged at least partially on the at least one guide rail, in this case the lock piece that is connected to the spring (¶ [0041], Fig. 2, ref. no. 371).
Regarding claim 6, Murui further discloses that the at least one flexible unit includes at least one flexible element arranged on a side of at least one guide rail facing the at least on battery pack housing, in this case the lock piece is pressed upward by the elastic member (¶ [0041], Figs. 2 & 3, ref. no. 371) which would result in the spring being located below the lock piece and the insertion grooves and thus on the side of the lower surface of the guide rail that “faces” the battery pack housing.
Regarding claim 8, Murui further discloses that:
the at least one guide rail includes two mounting ribs that extend substantially parallel to each other (see annotated Fig. 2, below); and
the at least one flexible unit includes at least one flexible element arranged between the two mounting ribs (see annotated Fig. 2, ref. no. 371, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
600
746
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Murui further discloses that:
the at least one guide rail includes a receiving chamber for a flexible element, in this case the lock piece is positioned in the corner formed by the mounting rib (see annotated Fig. 2, above); and
the receiving chamber is designed to be completely closed or open on one side in the assembled state, in this case the chamber would be completely closed when the battery pack is connected to the consumer, in this case the tool body (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 50).
Regarding claim 11, Murui further discloses a battery pack (¶ [0013], Figs. 1-4, ref. no. 30).
Regarding claim 12, Murui discloses:
at least one battery pack housing, in this case the battery pack (¶ [0018], Figs. 1, 2, & 4, ref. no. 31); and
at least one interface configured for an electrical and mechanical connection to a consumer, in this case the engagement part (¶ [0039], Fig. 2, ref. no. 32);
wherein the at least one interface includes at least one contact support, in this case the surfaces that define the slits (see annotated Fig. 2, ref. no. 321, above), that is arranged adjacent to a wall of the battery pack device, in this case the upper surface surrounding the slits (see annotated Fig. 2, ref. no. 321, above);
wherein the wall is designed to be curved, in this case the ends of the slits are rounded (see Fig. 2, ref. no. 321).
Regarding claim 13, Murui further discloses that the flexible element is designed to be elastic, in this case the lock piece includes an elastic member (¶ [0041], Fig. 2, ref. no. 371).
Regarding claim 14, Murui further discloses that the flexible element is designed to be elastic, in this case the lock piece includes an elastic member (¶ [0041], Fig. 2, ref. no. 371).
Regarding claim 15, Murui further discloses that the flexible element is designed to be elastic, in this case the lock piece includes an elastic member (¶ [0041], Fig. 2, ref. no. 371).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Murui.
Regarding claim 7, Murui further discloses that the flexible element is a spring, but does not specify a leaf spring. However, Murui further discloses spring members that support the electricity accumulator (¶ [0052]-[0056], Fig. 1, ref. no. 382) that may be either coil springs or leaf springs (¶ [0056]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a leaf spring would have provided the predictable result of allowing the lock piece to operate as desired, namely by pushing the lock piece upwards to secure the battery pack to the tool body and permitting the lock piece to move downward to allow attachment and disconnection between the battery pack and tool body (see ¶ [0041], Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a leaf spring as the flexible element in order to have yielded the predictable result of allowing the lock piece to operate as required.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Murui as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view of Perkins et al. (US 2022/0006892 A1), hereinafter “Perkins,” and Kreyenschmidt et al. (US 2015/0368380 A1), hereinafter “Kreyenschmidt.”
Regarding claim 10, Murui does not disclose that the flexible element is an elastomer. However, Perkins teaches that an elastomer material, in this case an elastomer pad, may be substituted for a leaf spring or a coil spring (¶ [0270]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the elastomer for the leaf spring would have yielded the predictable result of allowing the lock piece to operate as desired, namely by pushing the lock piece upwards to secure the battery pack to the tool body and permitting the lock piece to move downward to allow attachment and disconnection between the battery pack and tool body (see Murui ¶ [0041], Fig. 3). See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the elastomer for the leaf spring in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the lock piece to operate as required.
Murui and Perkins are silent as to the entropy-plastic material. However, Kreyenschmidt teaches polymers above the glass transition temperature possess a “rubbery or entropy plastic state” (¶ [0051]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have selected an elastomer with a glass transition temperature below the anticipated operating temperature range of the battery pack device in order to ensure that the flexible element remained in the “rubbery or entropy plastic state” and maintained the necessary elasticity to ensure that the lock piece functioned as intended. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected an elastomer that behaved as an entropy-plastic material in order to have ensured proper lock piece operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights