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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/28/24, 9/16/24, and 3/16/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 depends upon claim 1 which has been cancelled. Examiner is going to interpret this to mean claim 17 depends upon claim 16. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-18, 21-25, 27-28, and 37-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sheeks et al. (US 2020/0162007).
Regarding claim 16,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
A power tool comprising (Fig. 1B, all elements, ¶0133): a motor (34); and an energy supply device (18), an output current from the energy supply device to the power tool being greater than or equal to 70 amperes (¶0017).
Regarding claim 17,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein the energy supply device includes at least one rechargeable battery (¶0017).
Regarding claim 18,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein the rechargeable battery of the energy supply device has a rated voltage in a range from 20 to 25 V (¶0014).
Regarding claim 21,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein the rechargeable battery of the power tool has two positive contacts (Fig. 1Bone on the battery,18, one on the power tool, 398) and two negative contacts (one on the battery,18, one on the power tool, 398).
Regarding claim 22,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
further comprising a contact system (Fig. 1b, 398) for transmitting electrical energy between the power tool (22, 26) and the energy supply device (18), wherein the contact system has at least one first contact (top contact in 398) and at least one second contact (bottom contact, 398), wherein the first and second contacts have a contact cross-sectional area with a size of greater than or equal to 20 mm2 (¶0203).
Regarding claim 23,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein a mass of the energy supply device is in a range from 1 to 2 kg (up to 3.5 lbs which is 1.6kg, ¶0020).
Regarding claim 24,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein a mass of the energy supply device is in a range from 1.2 to 1.5 kg (up to 3.5 lbs which is 1.6kg, ¶0020, up to 3.5 lbs means it can be less than 3.5lbs).
Regarding claim 25,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein a mass of the energy supply device is 1.25 kg (up to 3.5 lbs which is 1.6kg, ¶0020, up to 3.5 lbs means it can be less than 3.5lbs).
Regarding claim 27,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein a power-to-weight ratio of the power tool is in a range of greater than or equal to 0.30 kW/kg (1.6kg/2400 watts is .667 kg/kW which is greater than .30, ¶0005).
Regarding claim 28,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein the power tool (1) has a disk-shaped tool (fig. 2B, 1126, ¶0135).
Regarding claim 37,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein an output power of the motor is in a range from 2 to 4 kW (at least 2200 watts, ¶0014).
Regarding claim 38,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein an output power of the motor is in a range from 2.5 to 3.3 kW (at least 2200 watts, ¶0014).
Regarding claim 39,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein an output power of the motor is 2.8 kW (at least 2200 watts, ¶0014).
Regarding claim 40,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein the motor has an outside diameter in a range of greater than or equal to 75 mm (¶0158).
Regarding claim 41,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein an efficiency of the power tool is in a range of greater than or equal to 0.70 (Fig. 28, efficiency percentage is greater than 70% at torque greater than 4 lb-in).
Regarding claim 42,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein an efficiency of the power tool is in a range of greater than or equal to 0.75 (Fig. 28, efficiency percentage is greater than 70% at torque greater than 4 lb-in).
Regarding claim 43,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein an intake power of the power tool is in a range from 2.5 to 4 kW (at least 2200 watts, ¶0014).
Regarding claim 44,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein an intake power of the power tool is in a range from 3 to 3.5 kW (at least 2200 watts, ¶0014).
Regarding claim 45,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1B):
wherein an intake power of the power tool is 3.2 kW (at least 2200 watts, ¶0014).
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) 19-20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheeks et al. (US 2020/0162007).
Regarding claim 19,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1b):
wherein the rechargeable battery of the energy supply device has a rated voltage (20 volts, ¶0014)
They do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the rechargeable battery of the energy supply device has a rated voltage in a range from 21 to 23 V
However, regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the battery from the power tool from Sheeks that is 20V (¶0014) and add more battery cells to increase the voltage as changes in size or merely scaling up a battery to make it larger would not be patentably distinct from the prior art as per In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1b):
wherein the rechargeable battery of the energy supply device has a rated voltage (20 volts, ¶0014)
They do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the rechargeable battery of the energy supply device has a rated voltage in a range from 21.5 to 22 V
However, regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the battery from the power tool from Sheeks that is 20V (¶0014) and add more battery cells to increase the voltage as changes in size or merely scaling up a battery to make it larger would not be patentably distinct from the prior art as per In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 26,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 1b):
wherein a ratio of the mass of the energy supply device to the output power P of the motor of the power tool is in a range (1.6kg/2400 watts is .667 kg/kW which is greater than .30, ¶0005, power output could be increased with larger motor to give lower energy density)
They do not explicitly disclose:
wherein a ratio of the mass of the energy supply device to the output power P of the motor of the power tool is in a range of less than or equal to 0.45 kg/kW
‘
However, regarding claim 26, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the battery from the power tool from Sheeks that is 20V (¶0014) and add a larger motor and decrease the battery size as changes in size or merely scaling up a motor or scaling down a battery would not be patentably distinct from the prior art as per In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheeks et al. (US 2020/0162007) in view of Greitmann et al. (US 2022/176511).
Regarding claim 29,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 2B):
The disk shaped tool (1126, ¶0135)
Sheeks does not disclose:
wherein a diameter of the disk- shaped tool is in a range from 250 to 450 mm.
However, Greitmann teaches:
wherein a diameter of the disk- shaped tool is in a range from 250 to 450 mm (300mm, ¶0040).
Regarding claim 29, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the disk-shaped tool or grinder from Sheeks (¶0135) and attach the safety protectors from Greitmann in order to fit larger grinding disks that are around 300mm as taught by Greitmann (¶0040). This would increase safety.
Regarding claim 30,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 2B):
The disk shaped tool (1126, ¶0135)
Sheeks does not disclose:
wherein a diameter of the disk- shaped tool is in a range from 270 to 400 mm.
However, Greitmann teaches:
wherein a diameter of the disk- shaped tool is in a range from 270 to 400 mm (300mm, ¶0040).
Regarding claim 30, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the disk-shaped tool or grinder from Sheeks (¶0135) and attach the safety protectors from Greitmann in order to fit larger grinding disks that are around 300mm as taught by Greitmann (¶0040). This would increase safety.
Regarding claim 30,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 2B):
The disk shaped tool (1126, ¶0135)
Sheeks does not disclose:
wherein a diameter of the disk- shaped tool is in a range from 270 to 400 mm.
However, Greitmann teaches:
wherein a diameter of the disk- shaped tool is in a range from 270 to 400 mm (300mm, ¶0040).
Regarding claim 30, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the disk-shaped tool or grinder from Sheeks (¶0135) and attach the safety protectors from Greitmann in order to fit larger grinding disks that are around 300mm as taught by Greitmann (¶0040). This would increase safety.
Regarding claim 31,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 2B):
The disk shaped tool (1126, ¶0135)
Sheeks does not disclose:
wherein a diameter of the disk- shaped tool is in a range from 290 to 350 mm.
However, Greitmann teaches:
wherein a diameter of the disk- shaped tool is in a range from 290 to 350 mm (300mm, ¶0040).
Regarding claim 31, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the disk-shaped tool or grinder from Sheeks (¶0135) and attach the safety protectors from Greitmann in order to fit larger grinding disks that are around 300mm as taught by Greitmann (¶0040). This would increase safety.
Regarding claim 32,
Sheeks discloses (Fig. 2B):
The disk shaped tool (1126, ¶0135)
Sheeks does not disclose:
wherein a diameter of the disk- shaped tool is 300 mm.
However, Greitmann teaches:
wherein a diameter of the disk- shaped tool is 300 mm (300mm, ¶0040).
Regarding claim 32, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the disk-shaped tool or grinder from Sheeks (¶0135) and attach the safety protectors from Greitmann in order to fit larger grinding disks that are around 300mm as taught by Greitmann (¶0040). This would increase safety.
Claim(s) 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheeks et al. (US 2020/0162007) in view of Brochman (US 2023/0031227).
Regarding claim 33,
Sheeks discloses the above elements from claim 16.
Sheeks does not disclose:
wherein a mass of the power tool is in a range from 6 to 12 kg.
However, Brochman teaches:
wherein a mass of the power tool is in a range from 6 to 12 kg (9kg is about 19 lbs, ¶0104).
Regarding claim 33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take one of multiple power tools from Sheeks (¶0135) and add the tubing bender tool from Brochman to Sheeks which lowers the wight compared to other tubing bending tools (¶0104). This would improve efficiency and safety.
Regarding claim 34,
Sheeks discloses the above elements from claim 16.
Sheeks does not disclose:
wherein a mass of the power tool is in a range from 8 to 10 kg.
However, Brochman teaches:
wherein a mass of the power tool is in a range from 8 to 10 kg (9kg is about 19 lbs, ¶0104).
Regarding claim 34, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take one of multiple power tools from Sheeks (¶0135) and add the tubing bender tool from Brochman to Sheeks which lowers the wight compared to other tubing bending tools (¶0104). This would improve efficiency and safety.
Regarding claim 35,
Sheeks discloses the above elements from claim 16.
Sheeks does not disclose:
wherein a mass of the power tool is in a range from 8.3 to 9 kg.
However, Brochman teaches:
wherein a mass of the power tool is in a range from 8.3 to 9 kg (9kg is about 19 lbs, ¶0104).
Regarding claim 35, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take one of multiple power tools from Sheeks (¶0135) and add the tubing bender tool from Brochman to Sheeks which lowers the wight compared to other tubing bending tools (¶0104). This would improve efficiency and safety.
Regarding claim 36,
Sheeks discloses the above elements from claim 16.
Sheeks does not disclose:
wherein a mass of the power tool is 8.6kg
However, Brochman teaches:
wherein a mass of the power tool is in a range from 8.6 kg (8.6kg is about 19 lbs, ¶0104).
Regarding claim 36, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take one of multiple power tools from Sheeks (¶0135) and add the tubing bender tool from Brochman to Sheeks which lowers the wight compared to other tubing bending tools (¶0104). This would improve efficiency and safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verbrugge et al. (US 2014/0131059) – cordless power tool
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7244. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/C.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DAVID LUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights