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 .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed. Applicant is reminded of their duty to disclose information that is material to the patentability of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 6-11 and 15-18 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.
7. Claim 6 recites the limitation "a lineally-arranged row of battery cells” in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are no prior structural limitations with regard to a “lineally-arranged row of battery cells” in the preceding or independent claims. It is unclear if the “lineally-arranged row of battery cells” is part of the claimed invention or for comparison purposes.
8. Claim 9 recites the limitation "a lineally-arranged row of battery cells” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are no prior structural limitations with regard to a “lineally-arranged row of battery cells” in the preceding or independent claims. It is unclear if the “lineally-arranged row of battery cells” is part of the claimed invention or for comparison purposes.
9. Claim 15 recites the limitation "a lineally-arranged row of battery cells” in lines 2 and 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are no prior structural limitations with regard to a “lineally-arranged row of battery cells” in the preceding or independent claims. It is unclear if the “lineally-arranged row of battery cells” is part of the claimed invention or for comparison purposes.
10. Claims 7-8, 10-11 and 16-18 are dependent upon Claims 6, 9 and 15 and include all of the limitations and subject matter of Claims 6, 9 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-6, 9, 12, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donovan (US 2022/0077520 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Donovan discloses in Figures 1A, 1B and 2, a compact battery, called a system (100), for energizing a powered device, said compact battery (100) comprising: a housing called a battery module (104) which includes a first side (108) and a second side (112); and a nested row, called a battery unit (116A-116N), comprising a plurality of battery cells (120) arranged in a first column (208A) and a second column (208B) (See Figure 2), contained within said housing (104), each of said battery cells (120) having an outer circumference that is offset and overlapping in both a vertical direction and a horizontal direction with at least one of said outer circumferences of an adjacent one of said plurality of battery cells (120) (See Figure 2) (paragraphs 0017-0019, 0028).
The recitation, “for energizing a powered device”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
The recitation, “for energizing a powered device”, is also recited in the preamble of the claim. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for energizing a powered device” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
With regard to Claim 2, Donovan discloses in Figures 1A, 1B and 2, wherein said nested row (116A-116N) is a first nested row, and wherein said compact battery (100) further comprises a second nested row (116A-116N) comprising a plurality of battery cells (120) contained within said housing (104), each of said battery cells (120) of said second nested row (116A-116N) having an outer circumference that is offset and overlapping in both the vertical direction and the horizontal direction (first column 208A and second column 208B; See Figure 2) with at least one of said outer circumferences of an adjacent one of said plurality of battery cells (120) of said second nested row (116A-116N) (paragraphs 0017-0019, 0028).
With regard to Claim 3, Donovan discloses in Figures 1A, 1B and 2, wherein at least one of said outer circumferences of said plurality of battery cells (120) of said first nested row (116A-116N) is offset and overlapping in both the vertical direction and the horizontal direction (first column 208A and second column 208B; See Figure 2) with at least one of said outer circumferences of said plurality of battery cells of said second nested row (116A-116N) (paragraphs 0017-0019, 0028).
With regard to Claim 4, Donovan discloses in Figures 1A, 1B and 2, wherein said plurality of battery cells (120) of said first nested row (116A-116N) are connected in electrical series with one another, and wherein said plurality of battery cells (120) of said second nested row (116A-116N) are connected in electrical series with one another (paragraphs 0020).
With regard to Claim 5, Donovan discloses in Figures 1A, 1B and 2, wherein said plurality of battery cells (120) of said first nested row (116A-116N) are electrically connected in parallel with said plurality of battery cells (120) of said second nested row (116A-116N) (paragraph 0020).
With regard to Claim 6, Donovan discloses in Figures 1A, 1B and 2, wherein said nested row (116A-116N) would inherently have a horizontal length that is substantially equivalent to a horizontal length of a lineally-arranged row of battery cells having one less battery cell than said nested row since the nested row is arranged in an offset configuration, and wherein the battery cells of the lineally-arranged row would inherently have outer circumferences that are substantially equal to said outer circumferences of said plurality of battery cells of said nested row if it is the same type of battery cell being used.
With regard to Claim 9, Donovan discloses in Figures 1A, 1B and 2, wherein said nested row (116A-116N) would inherently have a horizontal length that is less than a horizontal length of a lineally-arranged row of battery cells having the same number of battery cells as said nested row since the nested row is arranged in an offset configuration, and wherein the battery cells of the lineally-arranged row would inherently have outer circumferences that are substantially equal to said outer circumferences of said plurality of battery cells of said nested row if it is the same type of battery cell being used.
With regard to Claim 12, Donovan discloses in Figure 5, wherein said compact battery (100) further comprises a chassis, called a cell retainer (500), contained within said housing (104) and configured to support said plurality of battery cells (120), and wherein said chassis (500) electrically connects said plurality of battery cells (120) to one another (paragraph 0039).
With regard to Claim 14, Donovan discloses in Figures 1A, 1B and 2, a compact battery, called a system (100), said compact battery (100) comprising: a housing called a battery module (104) which includes a first side (108) and a second side (112); and a nested row, called a battery unit (116A-116N), within said housing (104), comprising a plurality of battery cells (120) arranged in a first column (208A) and a second column (208B) (See Figure 2), that are offset and overlapping in both a vertical direction and a horizontal direction with an adjacent one of said plurality of battery cells (120) (See Figure 2) (paragraphs 0017-0019, 0028).
The recitation, “for powering a handheld power tool”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
The recitation, “for powering a handheld power tool”, is also recited in the preamble of the claim. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for energizing a powered device” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
With regard to Claim 15, Donovan discloses wherein said compact battery would inherently have a nominal voltage rating that is substantially equivalent to a battery having a lineally-arranged row of battery cells that are substantially identical to said plurality of battery cells of said nested row since there are the same number of battery cells (120) in the nested row providing the same voltage output as that of a lineally-arranged row, and wherein said nested row would inherently have a horizontal dimension that is smaller than a horizontal dimension of the lineally arranged row of battery cells since the nested row contains battery cells (120) that are offset from one another.
With regard to Claim 18, Donovan discloses wherein said plurality of battery cells (120) are connected in electrical series with one another (paragraph 0020).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 7-8, 10-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan (US 2022/0077520 A1), as applied to Claims 1-6, 9, 12, 14-15 and 18 above.
With regard to Claim 7, Donovan discloses the compact battery in paragraph 13 above, including wherein the battery cells (120A-120N) are arranged in any configuration, including any number of rows and any number of columns (paragraph 0019), but do not specifically disclose wherein said nested row consists of 6 battery cells. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the nested row to consist of 6 battery cells, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 8, Donovan discloses the compact battery in paragraph 13 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein said compact battery has a nominal voltage rating that is within a range of 21.2 volts to 22.0 volts. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a compact battery that has a nominal voltage rating that is within a range of 21.2 volts to 22.0 volts, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to Claim 10, Donovan discloses the compact battery in paragraph 13 above, including wherein the battery cells (120A-120N) are arranged in any configuration, including any number of rows and any number of columns (paragraph 0019), but do not specifically disclose wherein said nested row consists of 6 battery cells. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the nested row to consist of 6 battery cells, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 11, Donovan discloses the compact battery in paragraph 13 above, including wherein the battery cells (120A-120N) are arranged in any configuration, including any number of rows and any number of columns (paragraph 0019), but do not specifically disclose wherein said nested row consists of 5 battery cells. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the nested row to consist of 5 battery cells, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 16, Donovan discloses the compact battery in paragraph 13 above, including wherein the battery cells (120A-120N) are arranged in any configuration, including any number of rows and any number of columns (paragraph 0019), but do not specifically disclose wherein said nested row consists of 6 battery cells. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the nested row to consist of 6 battery cells, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 17, Donovan discloses the compact battery in paragraph 13 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein each of said plurality of battery cells has a nominal voltage rating within a range of 3.4 volts to 3.8 volts. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a compact battery wherein each of said plurality of battery cells has a nominal voltage rating within a range of 3.4 volts to 3.8 volts, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
18. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan (US 2022/0077520 A1), as applied to Claims 1-6, 9, 12, 14-15 and 18 above, and in further view of Martinsson et al. (US 9,224,995 B2).
With regard to Claim 13, Donovan discloses in Figure 6, the compact battery in paragraph 13 above, including the compact battery being utilized to power an aircraft (paragraph 0003), but do not specifically disclose wherein said compact battery is configured to be electrically connected to a handheld power tool.
Martinsson et al. disclose in Figures 1C, 2A and 2B, an electric power tool (100) including a tool body (102) having a handle section (104) in which a battery pack (112) is located, wherein the battery pack (112) includes a cell housing (124) which may encase one or more battery cells (126) arranged in columns and rows in an offset configuration (column 4, line 56 through column 5, line 47 and column 6, line 24 through column 7, line 17). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art o modify the compact battery of Donovan to be used in a handheld power tool, because Martinsson et al. teach that the configuration of the cells improves the handling and ergonomics of the power tool (column 7, lines 9-17).
19. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan (US 2022/0077520 A1).
With regard to Claim 19, Donovan discloses in Figures 1A, 1B and 2, a compact battery, called a system (100), said compact battery (100) comprising: a nested row, called a battery unit (116A-116N), comprising a plurality of battery cells (120) arranged in a first column (208A) and a second column (208B) (See Figure 2) (paragraphs 0017-0019, 0028). Donovan discloses wherein the battery cells (120A-120N) are arranged in any configuration, including any number of rows and any number of columns, wherein each one of said battery cells (120A-120N) is offset and overlapping in a horizontal direction with an adjacent one of said battery cells (120A-120N) (paragraph 0019). Donovan does not specifically disclose 5 battery cells, at least 2 of said battery cells aligned with one another in a vertical direction, and offset and overlapping in the vertical direction with at least 3 of said battery cells. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the nested row to consist of 5 battery cells, at least 2 of said battery cells aligned with one another in a vertical direction, and offset and overlapping in the vertical direction with at least 3 of said battery cells, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
The recitation, “for powering a handheld power tool”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
The recitation, “for powering a handheld power tool”, is also recited in the preamble of the claim. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for energizing a powered device” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
With regard to Claim 20, Donovan does not specifically disclose wherein said nested row consists of 6 battery cells, 3 of said battery cells aligned with one another in the vertical direction, and offset and overlapping in the vertical direction with the remaining 3 of said battery cells. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the nested row to consist of 6 battery cells, 3 of said battery cells aligned with one another in the vertical direction, and offset and overlapping in the vertical direction with the remaining 3 of said battery cells, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725