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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Walme does not explicitly disclose “a second ratio formed from a sum of the total winding conductor cross sections and a free winding cross section, the second ratio being multiplied by a number of the pole teeth so that a product is greater than 2.2” as recited in claim 17. However, as shown in the calculations below, Walme does disclose this. For clarification, it appears item 29 in Walme corresponds to the “free winding cross section” in the claim. It is further noted that Applicant argues paragraph 0038 notes that claims 28-38 are not obvious. However, this just recites that it is beneficial for a power tool to operate in low temperatures. This is just interpreted as an optimum value of a result effective variable; it is within routine skill in the art to realize it is beneficial to allow for a tool to operate in a broad range of temperatures to allow for maximum usefulness or a broad range of applications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 17-22, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walme et al. (“Walme”; US 2018/0248418).
Regarding claim 17: Walme discloses an electric motor for a power tool, the electric motor (Fig. 2-4) comprising:
a stator (9) with an inner opening (21) for receiving a rotor, the inner opening having a diameter corresponding to a stator inner diameter (L4, for example, 26.8mm, paragraph 0018), the stator having a series of pole teeth (27) each wound with a winding (17) to form a coil (50), the winding being characterized by a reference diameter (L8, between 1-2mm, paragraph 0017), the reference diameter corresponds to the diameter of a single conductor if the single conductor has a circular cross section and the winding has just one single conductor (L8 in Fig. 6), a first ratio of the reference diameter of the winding (2mm) to the stator inner diameter (26.8mm) multiplied by a number of pole teeth (6 teeth in Fig. 2-3) being greater than 0.3 (2mm/26.8mm*6 = .44, which is greater than .3), a second ratio formed from a sum of the total winding conductor cross sections (each conductor as a diameter of 1-2mm, paragraph 0017, this results in a smallest possible cross sectional area of pi*1^2 or 3.14) and a free winding cross section (29, Fig. 4, in this case 6 total), the second ratio (3.14/6) being multiplied by the number of pole teeth (6, so 3.14/6*6 = 3.14) so that a product is greater than 2.2 (in this case it is 3.14).
Regarding claim 18: Walme discloses the product is greater than 2.5 (in this case it is 3.14).
Regarding claim 19: Walme discloses the product is greater than 2.8 (in this case it is 3.14).
Regarding claim 20: Walme discloses a number of pole teeth is in a range of two to twelve (in this case 6).
Regarding claim 21: Walme discloses a number of pole teeth is in a range of four to ten (in this case 6).
Regarding claim 22: Walme discloses a number of pole teeth is in a range of six and eight (in this case 6).
Regarding claim 39: Walme discloses the free winding section (29, Fig. 4) has an outer curved surface and two radially extending side surfaces (as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 40: Walme discloses the outer curved surface has a constant radius about a center of the stator (as it runs parallel to the radius of the stator).
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.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walme, in view of Samanta (US 2019/0058380).
Regarding claim 23: Walme discloses the electric motor is segmented (paragraph 0063), but does not explicitly disclose a number of the segments of the electric motor being in a range of two to twelve.
However, Samanta discloses a number of the stator segments of the electric motor being in a range of two to twelve (in this case six, paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stator of Walme to have six segments, as disclosed by Samanta, in order to allow for a segment for each winding tooth.
Regarding claim 24: Walme discloses the electric motor is segmented (paragraph 0063), but does not explicitly disclose a number of the segments of the electric motor being in a range of two to twelve.
However, Samanta discloses a number of the stator segments of the electric motor being in a range of four to ten (in this case six, paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stator of Walme to have six segments, as disclosed by Samanta, in order to allow for a segment for each winding tooth.
Regarding claim 25: Walme discloses the electric motor is segmented (paragraph 0063), but does not explicitly disclose a number of the segments of the electric motor being in a range of two to twelve.
However, Samanta discloses a number of the stator segments of the electric motor being in a range of six to eight (in this case six, paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stator of Walme to have six segments, as disclosed by Samanta, in order to allow for a segment for each winding tooth.
Claims 26-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walme, in view of Sheeks et al. (“Sheeks”; US 2020/01062007).
Regarding claim 26: Walme discloses the electric motor as recited in claim 17.
While a power tool can be an intendent use of the electric motor, Walme does not explicitly disclose a power tool comprising the electric motor.
However, Sheeks discloses a power tool comprising an electric motor (paragraph 0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motor of Walme to be explicitly used in a power tool in order to allow for additional applications.
Regarding claim 27: Walme modified by Sheeks disclose a power tool, Sheeks further discloses the power tool is detachably connectable to an energy supply device (18), the energy supply device being designed to supply the power tool with electrical energy (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 28: Walme modified by Sheeks disclose a system comprising the power tool as recited in claim 26 and, Sheeks further discloses an energy supply device (18), the energy supply device including at least one energy storage cell (Fig. 1B), the at least one energy storage cell having an internal resistance DCR_I (inherent), but does not explicitly disclose the DCR_I of less than 10 milliohms.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the internal resistance to be less than 10 milliohms in order to make the battery cell as efficient as possible.
Regarding claim 29: Walme modified by Sheeks discloses the energy storage cell, Sheeks further discloses the at least energy storage cell has a surface A and a volume V, and a surface-to-volume ratio A/V, but does not explicitly disclose A/V being greater than six times the reciprocal of the cube root of the volume.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the surface-to-volume ratio to be in the claimed range in order to make the battery cell as efficient as possible.
Regarding claim 30: Walme modified by Sheeks discloses the energy storage cell, Sheeks further discloses the at least energy storage cell has a surface A and a volume V, and a surface-to-volume ratio A/V, but does not explicitly disclose A/V being greater than eight times the reciprocal of the cube root of the volume.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the surface-to-volume ratio to be in the claimed range in order to make the battery cell as efficient as possible.
Regarding claim 31: Walme modified by Sheeks discloses the energy storage cell, Sheeks further discloses the at least energy storage cell has a surface A and a volume V, and a surface-to-volume ratio A/V, but does not explicitly disclose A/V being greater than ten times the reciprocal of the cube root of the volume.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the surface-to-volume ratio to be in the claimed range in order to make the battery cell as efficient as possible.
Regarding claim 32: Walme modified by Sheeks discloses the energy storage cell, Sheeks further discloses a ratio of a resistance of the at least one energy storage cell to a surface A of the at least one energy storage cell, but does not explicitly disclose the ratio is less than 0.2 milliohms/cm2.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ratio to be in the claimed range in order to make the battery cell as efficient as possible.
Regarding claim 33: Walme modified by Sheeks discloses the energy storage cell, Sheeks further discloses a ratio of a resistance of the at least one energy storage cell to a surface A of the at least one energy storage cell, but does not explicitly disclose the ratio is less than 0.1 milliohms/cm2.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ratio to be in the claimed range in order to make the battery cell as efficient as possible.
Regarding claim 34: Walme modified by Sheeks discloses the energy storage cell, Sheeks further discloses a ratio of a resistance of the at least one energy storage cell to a surface A of the at least one energy storage cell, but does not explicitly disclose the ratio is less than 0.05 milliohms/cm2.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ratio to be in the claimed range in order to make the battery cell as efficient as possible.
Regarding claim 35: Walme modified by Sheeks discloses the energy supply device, Sheeks further discloses the energy supply device has a capacity of at least 2.2 Ah (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 36: Walme modified by Sheeks discloses the energy supply device, Sheeks further discloses the energy supply device has a capacity of at least 2.5 Ah (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 37: Walme modified by Sheeks discloses a ratio of the reference diameter of the winding (Walme: L8, 1-2mm) of the electric motor to the stator inner diameter (Walme: L4, 26.8mm) of the electric motor multiplied by the number of pole teeth (Walme: 6) and the reciprocal of the internal resistance DCR_I of an energy storage cell of the energy supply device (Sheeks, inherent), but do not explicitly disclose the ratio is greater than 0.03 (milliohms)^-1.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ratio to be in the claimed range in order to make the system as efficient as possible.
Regarding claim 38: Walme modified by Sheeks discloses a ratio of the reference diameter of the winding (Walme: L8, 1-2mm) of the electric motor to the stator inner diameter (Walme: L4, 26.8mm) of the electric motor multiplied by the number of pole teeth (Walme: 6) and the reciprocal of the internal resistance DCR_I of an energy storage cell of the energy supply device (Sheeks, inherent), but do not explicitly disclose the ratio is greater than 0.22 (milliohms)^-1.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ratio to be in the claimed range in order to make the system as efficient as possible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights