DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 4 May 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 53, 55, and 57-74 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 67-74 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 53, 55, and 57-66, in the reply filed on 4 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant does not agree with or acquiesce to the characterizations of Baratta et al. in the Restriction Requirement.” This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not specified any alleged deficiencies in the analysis for the examiner to consider. Merely asserting that Applicant disagrees without specifically pointing how the language of the claims allegedly distinguishes from the reference does not provide the examiner an opportunity to fully consider Applicant’s arguments and to agree with or rebut any such arguments.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 53 and 57-66 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 55 and 57-66 recites “A power tool stand according to claim [Number]” rather than “The power tool stand according to claim [Number]” instead. The examiner strongly recommends reciting “The” rather than “A” to minimize opportunity for confusion as to how many tool stands there may be.
Claim 64 recites “wherein the carriage mechanism is positions on a first side” at lines 1-2. It appears this might be a typographical error, and the claim should recite “wherein the carriage mechanism is positioned on a first side” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 59-62 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 59 recites the limitation "the removable battery" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 60 recites the limitation "the battery interface" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 60 depends from claim 53, however “a battery interface” is recited in claim 59. For the purposes of an art rejection, the examiner will interpret claim 60 as if it depends from claim 59, instead of 53.
Claim 61 recites the limitation "the battery interface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 61 depends from claim 53, however “a battery interface” is recited in claim 59. For the purposes of an art rejection, the examiner will interpret claim 61 as if it depends from claim 59, instead of 53.
Claim 62 recites the limitation "the battery interface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 62 depends from claim 53, however “a battery interface” is recited in claim 59. For the purposes of an art rejection, the examiner will interpret claim 62 as if it depends from claim 59, instead of 53.
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.
Claims 53, 57, and 64-66
Claims 53, 57, and 64-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent 6,223,974 to Jones (hereinafter “Jones”).
Regarding claim 53, Jones discloses a power tool stand (10) comprising: a base (12); a projecting frame (14) connected to the base (12); a power tool carriage (34) moveably mounted on the projecting frame (14); a tool interface (30) mounted on the power tool carriage (34) and arranged to secure a removable power tool (20; see Col. 6, lines 6-10); a carriage mechanism (vertical extension mechanism combination; see Col. 6, line 66 – Col. 7, line 10) mounted on the power tool carriage (34) arranged to move the power tool carriage (34) with respect to the projecting frame (14); and a handle (78) coupled to the carriage mechanism (see Figs. 15-16); wherein the carriage mechanism comprises a rack and pinion (72, 74; see Fig. 15); and wherein at least one gear (76) is rotatably coupled between the pinion (72) and the handle (78).
Regarding claim 57, Jones discloses the limitations of claim 53, and further Jones discloses that the carriage mechanism (vertical extension mechanism) is arranged to move the power tool (20) towards the base (12) when the handle (78) is pulled away from the base on a first side of the projecting frame (14; see Fig. 11, height of power tool raises or lowers as handle is rotated).
Regarding claim 64, Jones discloses the limitations of claim 53, and further Jones discloses that the carriage mechanism (vertical extension mechanism combination) is positioned on a first side (see Fig. 15; rack, pinion, and handle extend to the right of the leftmost wall of the frame 14) of the projecting frame (14); and wherein the tool interface (30) is positioned on a second side of the projecting frame (14; tool interface extends from left side of leftmost wall of frame 14).
Regarding claim 65, Jones discloses the limitations of claim 64, and further Jones discloses that the power tool stand comprises a drive shaft (82).
Regarding claim 66, Jones discloses the limitations of claim 64, and further Jones discloses that the handle (72) is mounted on the drive shaft (82; see Col. 7, lines 22-24).
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.
Claim 55
Claim 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones as applied to claim 53 above.
Regarding claim 55, Jones discloses the limitations of claim 53, however Jones does not disclose that the rack is mounted on the projecting frame (14) and the pinion (72) is mounted on the power tool carriage. Instead, Jones teaches that the rack (74) moves with the power tool carriage (34; see Figs. 14 and 15, rack travels vertically with respect to the projecting frame and is connected to drive the carriage 34 via extension 16). The pinion (72) appears to be mounted to the projecting frame (14).
It would have been obvious within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Jones to reverse the locations of the rack and pinion. Courts have found that where the prior art discloses relative movement between two parts, reversal of such movement may be understood to be an obvious modification (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)). It would have been obvious to reverse the components to which the pinion and the rack are mounted, allowing for the same relative movement between the projecting frame and the power tool carriage via the extension portion taught by Jones. (See MPEP 2143(A)). One having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the modified device would allow for vertical positioning of the power tool secured by the tower in a predictable manner, without departing from the mode of operation of the device of Jones.
Thus, Jones teaches the limitations of claim 55.
Claims 58-63
Claims 58-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0129582 to Ullrich (hereinafter “Ullrich”).
Regarding claim 58, Jones discloses the limitations of claim 53, however Jones does not explicitly disclose that the tool interface comprises an electrical interface and mechanical interface and the tool interface is arranged to electrically and mechanically connect with the removable power tool. Jones teaches that the power tool may be secured to the power tool stand mechanically via, for example, a mounting structure (30; see Col. 6, lines 6-10). Jones teaches that the power tool (20, 22) may be provided with a power cord (48, see Fig. 9 and 50, see Fig. 12) for powering the tool. Jones teaches that the location of the battery for the power tool may be a concern (see Col. 2, lines 17-30) such that a battery allows the tool to be used with increased maneuverability and safety.
It is known in the art of tool stands to provide a power tool stand with a battery system for electrically connecting to a supported power tool. For example, Ullrich teaches such a power tool stand.
Ullrich teaches a power tool stand (10a) which supports a power tool (42a) in a tool interface portion (46a; see paragraph [0025]). The tool interface portion may mechanically connect (clamp; see paragraph [0025]) and electrically connect (energy storage unit 24a connects to power tool 46a at receiving interface 44a for delivering power thereto; see paragraph [0026]). Ullrich teaches that its energy storage unit allows the tool stand to be portable and function independently of an electricity supply network (see paragraph [0008]), advantageously allowing the tool stand to function conveniently.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Jones to include an energy storage unit as taught by Ullrich for connecting electrically to the power tool. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would advantageously allow for the tool stand to provide power for the supported power tool without the potential inconvenience of power cords to maneuver around and allowing the power tool stand to function independently of an electricity supply network.
Thus, the combination of Jones and Ullrich teaches the limitations of claim 58.
Regarding claim 59, Jones discloses the limitations of claim 53, however Jones does not explicitly disclose that the power tool carriage comprises a battery interface arranged to electrically and mechanically connect with the removable battery. Jones teaches that the power tool may be secured to the power tool stand mechanically via, for example, a mounting structure (30; see Col. 6, lines 6-10). Jones teaches that the power tool (20, 22) may be provided with a power cord (48, see Fig. 9 and 50, see Fig. 12) for powering the tool. Jones teaches that the location of the battery for the power tool may be a concern (see Col. 2, lines 17-30) such that a battery allows the tool to be used with increased maneuverability and safety.
It is known in the art of tool stands to provide a power tool stand with a battery system for electrically connecting to a supported power tool. For example, Ullrich teaches such a power tool stand.
Ullrich teaches a power tool stand (10a) which supports a power tool (42a) in a tool interface portion (46a; see paragraph [0025]). The tool interface portion may mechanically connect (clamp; see paragraph [0025]) and electrically connect (energy storage unit 24a connects to power tool 46a at receiving interface 44a for delivering power thereto; see paragraph [0026]). Ullrich teaches that its energy storage unit allows the tool stand to be portable and function independently of an electricity supply network (see paragraph [0008]), advantageously allowing the tool stand to function conveniently. Ullrich teaches that the energy storage unit may be embodied as a battery (see paragraph [0026]) which may be removable from the stand.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Jones to include an energy storage unit embodied as a removable battery as taught by Ullrich for connecting electrically to the power tool and the power tool stand. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would advantageously allow for the tool stand to provide power for the supported power tool without the potential inconvenience of power cords to maneuver around and allowing the power tool stand to function independently of an electricity supply network.
Thus, the combination of Jones and Ullrich teaches the limitations of claim 59.
Regarding claim 60, the combination of Jones and Ullrich teaches the limitations of claim 59, and further Ullrich teaches that the tool interface (46a) is mounted on a first side (left side with respect to Fig. 1) of the power tool carriage (portion of tool holder at 50a; see Fig. 1) and the battery interface (22a) is mounted on a second side of the power tool carriage (see Fig. 1; battery interface 22a is mounted at right side of tower and thus power tool carriage).
Regarding claim 61, the combination of Jones and Ullrich teaches the limitations of claim 59, and further Ullrich teaches that the battery interface (22a) projects over the base (16a).
Regarding claim 62, the combination of Jones and Ullrich teaches the limitations of claim 59, and further Ullrich teaches that the tool interface (46a extends from left side of tool stand) projects in a direction away from the battery interface (22a positioned at right side of device; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 63, Jones discloses the limitations of claim 53, however Jones does not explicitly disclose that the power tool stand comprises a plurality of second battery interfaces arranged electrically to connect with a plurality of removeable batteries. Jones teaches that the power tool may be secured to the power tool stand mechanically via, for example, a mounting structure (30; see Col. 6, lines 6-10). Jones teaches that the power tool (20, 22) may be provided with a power cord (48, see Fig. 9 and 50, see Fig. 12) for powering the tool. Jones teaches that the location of the battery for the power tool may be a concern (see Col. 2, lines 17-30) such that a battery allows the tool to be used with increased maneuverability and safety. Jones is silent as to how many batteries may be connected to its power tools.
It is known in the art of tool stands to provide a power tool stand with a battery system for electrically connecting to a supported power tool. For example, Ullrich teaches such a power tool stand.
Ullrich teaches a power tool stand (10a) which supports a power tool (42a) in a tool interface portion (46a; see paragraph [0025]). The tool interface portion may mechanically connect (clamp; see paragraph [0025]) and electrically connect (energy storage unit 24a connects to power tool 46a at receiving interface 44a for delivering power thereto; see paragraph [0026]). Ullrich teaches that its energy storage unit allows the tool stand to be portable and function independently of an electricity supply network (see paragraph [0008]), advantageously allowing the tool stand to function conveniently. Ullrich teaches that the energy storage unit may be embodied as a battery (see paragraph [0026]) which may be removable from the stand. Ullrich further teaches that “the energy storage unit is realized as a battery unit that, in particular, comprises a multiplicity of rechargeable cells” (see paragraph [0007]) and a plurality of different charging interfaces (see paragraphs [0013]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Jones to include an a plurality of battery interfaces as taught by Ullrich for connecting electrically to the power tool. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would advantageously allow for the tool stand to provide power for the supported power tool without the potential inconvenience of power cords to maneuver around and allowing the power tool stand to function independently of an electricity supply network.
Thus, the combination of Jones and Ullrich teaches the limitations of claim 63.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0273594 to Timpson teaches a power tool tower having a rack and pinion, the rack and pinion being located opposite of a power tool interface on the tower (see Fig. 2).
United States Patent 4,582,105 to Wolff teaches a work stand for an electric power tool (9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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 Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights