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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/22/26.
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagasaka et al. (2012/0061117).
Regarding claim 1, Nagasaka discloses an accessory configured to fix to a hand-held power tool, the hand-held power tool (1) directly coupled to a battery pack (15) which powers to a drive motor (as sown in Fig. 6) of the hand-held power tool, the accessory comprising: a battery protection element (50; Fig. 3) configured to enclose the battery pack, arranged on with the battery pack directly coupled to the hand-held power tool, at least in sections, and to protect the battery in the event of impact pulses occurring (as best shown in Figs. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 2, Nagasaka discloses wherein the accessory further comprising: a base body (i.e. bottom portion) configured integrally with the battery protection element (Figs. 2, 7, 10).
Regarding claim 3, Nagasaka discloses wherein the battery protection element (50) comprises plastic (par. 41).
Regarding claims 4-7, 12 and 17, Nagasaka discloses wherein the battery protection element (50) forms a trough-shaped receptacle configured to receive the battery pack arranged on the hand-held power tool (Fig. 4); and forms a plate-shaped protective body (Figs. 7 and 10; e.g. the base is formed of walls and or plates); a base body connected to the battery protection element via a detachable connection (57).
Regarding claims 9-11 and 14, Nagasaka discloses a power tool system comprising: a hand-held power tool having a drive motor (Fig. 6) and on which a battery pack (15) for supplying power to the drive motor is arranged; and an accessory (50) comprising a battery protection element configured to enclose the battery pack arranged on the hand-held power tool at least in sections and to protect the battery in the event of impact pulses occurring, wherein each of the battery pack (15) and the accessory (50) are configured to be coupled to the hand-held power tool independently of the other of the battery pack and the accessory (Figs. 3-6); the protection element has a side wall and a bottom surface (Figs. 3-4); wherein the battery protection element is configured as a dust collection container; wherein the hand-held power tool is an impact/drilling machine or hammer drill (par. 71).
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(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaka et al. (2012/0061117).
Regarding claim 8, Nagasaka discloses an accessory, as disclosed above, comprising a base body (base body walls as shown in Figs. 7 and 10) and protection element (50 made of plastic), but fails to disclose wherein the base body comprises a first material and the battery protection element comprises a second material that is different from the first material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provided the protection element and the base body from different materials as a matter of routine engineering design choice and material selection according to the different functions and mechanical requirements of the components. The material of the battery protection element could be selected to provide suitable impact resistance, rigidity, abrasion resistance, and protection of the battery, while the material of the base body could independently be selected based on considerations such as weight, manufacturability, structural support, and cost. Thus, selecting different known materials for the battery protection element and the base body according to the respective requirements of those components would have involved no more than the predictable use of known materials according to their established properties and would have yielded the predictable result of providing each component with properties suitable for its intended function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13, 16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MICHELLE LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270 - 1926. 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.
/MICHELLE LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights