DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “ for performing the method for performing the method as recited in claim 6” includes a drafting error. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “ for performing the method as recited in claim 6”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 6 and 7-10 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation “a predetermined threshold value” in line 11. It is not clear whether it is the same or different predetermined threshold value as recited in lines 9-10. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the predetermined threshold value”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a predetermined period of time reaches a predetermined threshold value” in lines 14-15. It is not clear whether it is the same or different predetermined period of time and predetermined threshold value as recited in lines 9-10. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the predetermined period of time reaches the predetermined threshold value”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a predetermined form according to a predetermined threshold value” in line 16. It is not clear whether its is the same or different predetermined form and predetermined threshold value recited in line 11. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the predetermined form according to the predetermined threshold value”.
5. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the signal" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "a signal".
6. Claims 7-10 are rejected as depending from claim 6.
7. Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 recites the limitation “A rechargeable battery” in line 1. It is not clear whether it is the same or different rechargeable battery as recited in claim 6 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “The rechargeable battery”.
8. Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 recites the limitation “A power tool” in line 1. It is not clear whether it is the same or different power tool as recited in claim 6 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “The power tool”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sheeks et al. (US 2019/0006980) as cited in IDS dated 1/22/24.
Regarding claim 6, Sheeks discloses a method ([0232]-[0245], Figs. 54 & 55) for communication between a power tool (14, Fig. 1A, [0145]) and a rechargeable battery for supplying the power tool with electrical energy(18, Figs. 1A & 1B, [0145]), the rechargeable battery including a controller unit (574, Fig. 53, [0227]) having at least one first transceiver(582, Fig. 53, [0227]), and the power tool including a control unit (402, Fig. 28, [0189]) having at least one second transceiver([0232]), the method steps of: emitting at least one first signal from the first transceiver to the second transceiver([0239]-[0240], Fig. 54); emitting at least one second signal from the first transceiver to the second transceiver after a predetermined period of time has elapsed([0240], Fig. 54); shifting the power tool from a first operating state into a second operating state if a number of signals received by the second transceiver in a predetermined period of time reaches a predetermined threshold value or a form of a signal received by the second transceiver deviates from a predetermined form according to the predetermined threshold value([0240]); and emitting at least one signal from the second transceiver to the first transceiver in order to shift the rechargeable battery from a first operating state into a second operating state if the number of signals received by the second transceiver in the predetermined period of time reaches the predetermined threshold value and/or the form of the signal received by the second transceiver deviates from the predetermined form according to the predetermined threshold value([0240]).
Regarding claim 8, Sheeks discloses a system (electrical combination 10, Figs. 1A & 1B, [0145]) for performing the method as recited in claim 6, the system comprising: the power tool(14, [0145]); and the rechargeable battery (18, [0145]) including a first communication element (communication terminals [0232]), and the power tool including a second communication element connectable to the first communication element(communication terminal [0212]), wherein in a connected state, signals are transferrable between the first and second communication elements([0232]).
Regarding claim 9, Sheeks discloses the rechargeable battery for performing the method as recited in claim 6([0224]-[0238]).
Regarding claim 10, Sheeks discloses the power tool for performing the method as recited in claim 6 ([0224]-[0226]).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 7 is 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.
In particular, the allowable limitation is further comprising emitting a signal containing a synchronization pattern from the first transceiver to the second transceiver in order to adjust a transmission rate for the communication between the at least one first transceiver and second transceiver.
Sheeks does not disclose, teach or render obvious further comprising emitting a signal containing a synchronization pattern from the first transceiver to the second transceiver in order to adjust a transmission rate for the communication between the at least one first transceiver and second transceiver.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights