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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 21 June 2024.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 June 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 2 and 16 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “axial and radial directions”, should read, “an axial direction and a radial direction”.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation, “is first elastomeric damper”, should read, “is a first elastomeric damper”.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation, “the posts”, should read, “the opposed posts”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the Specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“an isolation member” in claims 1 and 12. Please note, the claim limitation, “an isolation member”, uses a term, “member”, used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function and the term, “member”, is modified by the functional language, “selectively receive a battery pack to electrically connect the battery pack to the electric motor”. While the claim recites the isolation member having the structure of a damper post (claim 1) or an opposed posts (claim 12), the structure of the damper post does not perform the claimed function of selectively receiving the battery pack to electrically connect the battery pack to the electric motor. Thus, the term, “an isolation member”, is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function of selectively receiving the battery pack to electrically connect the battery pack to the electric motor.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
(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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thorson (US 2014/0326477 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (E)]
Regarding claim 1, Thorson discloses an impact tool comprising:
an electric motor (18, fig. 2);
a housing (14, fig. 2) containing the electric motor;
a battery receptacle (42, fig. 2) including a cylindrical damper pocket (106, fig. 5);
an isolation member (70, fig. 5) disposed within the battery receptacle and configured to selectively receive a battery pack (via rails 86) to electrically connect the battery pack to the electric motor (via terminal block 82), the isolation member including a damper post (102, fig. 5); and
an elastomeric damper (78, fig. 5) coupled to the damper post and received within the damper pocket ([0025] describes isolators 78 being positioned on posts 102 that extend from the interface member 74 of an isolation member 70 and received in openings 106), the elastomeric damper having a cylindrical shape (As shown in figures 5 – 7) coinciding with the cylindrical damper pocket (As shown in figure 5),
wherein during operation of the impact tool, the elastomeric damper attenuates relative motion between the damper post of the isolation member and the damper pocket of the battery receptacle in both axial and radial directions of the damper post which, in turn, attenuates vibration from being transmitted from the housing to the battery pack (Figures 6 – 7 shows an isolator 78 configured to attenuate relative motion between post 98 of the isolation member and openings 106 of the battery receptacle in the axial direction along longitudinal axis 16 of the isolator 78 and the radial direction of the isolator 78. Also, [0026] describes the isolation system 70 being configured to allow the isolation member 70 having an attached battery pack to move in six degrees of freedom (i.e., forward-backward, up-down, and side-to-side) relative to a housing 14 such that certain frequencies of vibrations of the housing 14 are not transferred to the battery pack 30. This implies the isolators 78 of the isolation system 70 attenuates relative motion between the damper posts of the isolation members and the damper pockets of the battery receptacle in both axial (side-to-side) and radial directions (forward-backward, up-down) which, in turn, attenuates vibration from being transmitted from the housing to the battery pack).
Regarding claim 2, Thorson discloses the damper post (102, fig. 5) is a first damper post (post 102A as shown in annotated fig. 5) and the elastomeric damper (78, fig. 5) is first elastomeric damper (isolator 78B as shown in annotated fig. 5), and wherein the isolation member further includes a second damper post (post 102C as shown in annotated fig. 5), wherein the impact tool further includes a second elastomeric damper (isolator 78D as shown in annotated fig. 5) coupled to the second damper post.
Regarding claim 3, Thorson discloses the damper pocket (106, fig. 5) is a first damper pocket (opening 106E as shown in annotated fig. 5), and wherein the battery receptacle (42, fig. 2) further includes a second damper pocket (opening 106F as shown in annotated fig. 5. Please note, while opening 106F is not explicitly shown in annotated figure 5, [0025] describes isolators 78 being positioned on posts 102 that extend from the interface member 74 of an isolation member 70 and received in openings 106 wherein the examiner deems the opening 106F that receives the isolator 78D as the claimed “a second damper pocket”) with the second elastomeric damper (isolator 78D as shown in annotated fig. 5) being disposed between the second damper post (post 102C as shown in annotated fig. 5) and the second damper pocket to attenuate transmission of vibration from the housing to the battery pack.
Regarding claim 4, Thorson discloses the isolation member (70, fig. 5) includes a pair of sidewalls (110A, 110B, fig. 6), a top wall (118, fig. 6), and an end wall (end wall G, annotated fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Thorson discloses the isolation member (70, fig. 5) further includes a first central ridge (114, fig. 6) protruding from the top wall (118, fig. 6), and wherein the first damper post (post 102A as shown in annotated fig. 5) and the second damper post (post 102C as shown in annotated fig. 5) project laterally outward in opposite directions from the first central ridge.
Regarding claim 7, Thorson discloses the pair of sidewalls (110A, 110B, fig. 6), the top wall (118, fig. 6), and the end wall (end wall G, annotated fig. 5) define a cavity (cavity H, annotated fig. 5) configured to receive a connecting structure of the battery pack ([0028]).
PNG
media_image3.png
642
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (I)][AltContent: textbox (I)][AltContent: textbox (J)][AltContent: textbox (J)][AltContent: textbox (Thorson (US 2014/0326477 A1)
Annotated figs. 6 and 7)]
Regarding claim 8, Thorson discloses the elastomeric damper (78, fig. 5) defines an open end (end I, annotated figs. 6, 7) that receives the damper post (102, fig. 5) (As shown fig. 5), such that the elastomeric damper completely surrounds the damper post (As shown in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Thorson discloses the elastomeric damper (78, fig. 5) also defines a distal end (end J, annotated figs. 6, 7) that is opposite the open end (end I, annotated figs. 6, 7), wherein the distal end of the elastomeric damper extends beyond the damper post (102, fig. 5) (As shown fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Thorson discloses the elastomeric damper (78, fig. 5) is disposed between the damper post (102, fig. 5) and the damper pocket (106, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Thorson discloses the isolation member (70, fig. 5) is configured to move in three orthogonal directions relative to the housing (14, fig. 2) ([0026] describes the isolation system 70 being configured to allow the isolation member 70 having an attached battery pack to move in six degrees of freedom (i.e., forward-backward, up-down, and side-to-side) relative to a housing 14 such that certain frequencies of vibrations of the housing 14 are not transferred to the battery pack 30).
Regarding claim 12, Thorson discloses an impact tool comprising:
an electric motor (18, fig. 2);
a housing (14, fig. 2) containing the electric motor; and
a battery receptacle (42, fig. 2) including an isolation member (70, fig. 5) configured to selectively and detachably couple to a battery pack (via rails 86) to electrically connect the battery pack to the electric motor (via terminal block 82), the isolation member including opposed posts (post 102A, 102C, annotated fig. 5) configured to be received into open ends (ends I, annotated figs. 6, 7) of elastomeric dampers (78, fig. 5 – specifically isolators 78B, 78D, annotated fig. 5) supported within the housing.
Regarding claim 13, Thorson discloses the housing (14, fig. 2) defines opposed damper pockets (106, fig. 5 – specifically openings 106E, 106F, annotated fig. 5) that receive the elastomeric dampers (78, fig. 5 – specifically isolators 78B, 78D, annotated fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Thorson discloses each elastomeric damper (78, fig. 5 – specifically isolators 78B, 78D, annotated fig. 5) is disposed between one of the opposed posts and one of the damper pockets (Annotated fig. 5 shows the isolator 78B disposed between the post 102A and opening 106E and shows isolator 78D disposed between the post 102C and opening 106F).
Regarding claim 15, Thorson discloses the elastomeric dampers (78, fig. 5) are cylindrical in shape (As shown in figures 5 – 7), such that the elastomeric dampers completely surround each opposed post (As shown in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Thorson discloses the elastomeric dampers (78, fig. 5) define a distal end (end J, annotated fig. 6, 7) that is opposite the open end (end I, annotated fig. 6, 7), wherein the distal end of the elastomeric dampers extend beyond the opposing posts (post 102A, 102C, annotated fig. 5) (As shown fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, Thorson discloses the isolation member (70, fig. 5) includes a pair of sidewalls (110A, 110B, fig. 6), a top wall (118, fig. 6), and an end wall (end wall G, annotated fig. 5), and a central ridge 1111 protruding from the top wall, and wherein the opposed posts (post 102A, 102C, annotated fig. 5) project laterally outward from the central ridge.
Regarding claim 18, Thorson discloses the pair of sidewalls (110A, 110B, fig. 6), the top wall (118, fig. 6), and the end wall (end wall G, annotated fig. 5) define a cavity (cavity H, annotated fig. 5) configured to receive a connecting structure of the battery pack ([0028]).
Regarding claim 19, Thorson discloses the top wall (118, fig. 6) defines an aperture, and wherein the impact tool further includes a terminal block (82, fig. 5) that extends through the aperture to reside within the cavity (cavity H, annotated fig. 5) (Figures 5, 6 shows a terminal block 82 within a top wall 118 of an interface member [0027] describes a terminal bock 82 as a separate piece from the interface member 74 of the isolation member implying that a top wall 118 of the interface member 74 has an aperture that contains and supports the terminal block 82).
Regarding claim 20, Thorson discloses the elastomeric dampers (78, fig. 5) are configured to attenuate transmission of vibrations from the housing to the battery pack along three orthogonal directions ([0026] describes the isolation system 70 being configured to allow the isolation member 70 having an attached battery pack to move in six degrees of freedom (i.e., forward-backward, up-down, and side-to-side) relative to a housing 14 such that certain frequencies of vibrations of the housing 14 are not transferred to the battery pack 30. This implies the isolators 78 of the isolation system 70 attenuates relative motion between the housing 14 and the battery receptacle along three orthogonal directions (forward-backward, up-down, side-to-side)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 are objected 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, upon examination of the art of record, it has been decided that the art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed limitation, “the isolation member further includes a second central ridge protruding from the end wall, a third damper post, and a fourth damper post, wherein the third damper post and the fourth damper post project laterally outward in opposite directions from the second central ridge.” The closest prior art is Thorson. Thorson does not disclose the second central ridge protruding from the end wall, the third damper post, and the fourth damper post, wherein the third damper post and the fourth damper post project laterally outward in opposite directions from the second central ridge. Additionally, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious this limitation. Thus, it is examiner' s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, 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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
20 February 2026