DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 12/18/2025.
Claims 26-27, 29-46, and 50-54 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 53 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 53:
In claim 53 “a transition region” is indefinite because the metes and bounds are ambiguous. It is unclear what is transitioning and how such a region is defined and can be identified.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 26-27, 29-42, 45-46, 50-52, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilbert et al. US 2009/0028653 in view of Furuta et al. US 2008/0032190.
Regarding claim 26:
Wilbert teaches a power tool (20) comprising: a tool (44) drivable by a shaft device (seen in FIG. 1A between the motor 36 and tool 44); and a motor (36), a position of the shaft device being defined by a shaft axis and a position of the motor being defined by a motor axis (e.g., axis of motor housing 28), the power tool connectable to at least one exchangeable energy supply device (96) in order to be supplied with energy ([0028]), and the shaft axis running parallel to the motor axis (see FIG. 1A); a first housing (28) and a second housing (108), the first housing being configured to at least partially enclose the motor, and the second housing being configured to at least partially enclose the exchangeable energy supply device (see FIG. 3); the energy supply device being able to protrude from openings or clearances in the second housing of the power tool (envisaged at 108 in FIG. 3), the energy supply device having two sides.
Wilbert does not teach a protective device with battery protection elements, the battery protection elements protruding by a protrusion from the first housing or the second housing of the power tool, the battery protection elements being arranged on both of the two sides of the energy supply device; and wherein the battery protection elements have a height greater than the protrusion of the energy supply device.
Furuta discloses a protective device (121) with battery protection elements, the battery protection elements protruding by a protrusion from the second housing (i.e., battery holder 109) of the power tool, the battery protection elements being arranged on both of the two sides of the energy supply device (see FIG. 3); and wherein the battery protection elements have a height greater than the protrusion of the energy supply device (shown in FIG. 3; abstract, last sentence).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the power tool of Wilbert by providing a protective device with battery protection elements, the battery protection elements protruding by a protrusion from the first housing or the second housing of the power tool, the battery protection elements being arranged on both of the two sides of the energy supply device; and wherein the battery protection elements have a height greater than the protrusion of the energy supply device, as taught by Furuta, in order to protect the battery from external damage during use.
Regarding claim 27:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 26, but does not explicitly teach wherein the motor has a motor shaft, the motor axis defined by the motor shaft.
However, Examiner takes official notice that motor output shafts coupled to tool bits are old and well-known as the accepted standard in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to provide the power tool of Wilbert and Furuta with a motor shaft, the motor axis defined by the motor shaft, in order to drive the tool.
Regarding claim 28:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 26 further comprising a first housing (28) and a second housing (108), the first housing being configured to at least partially enclose the motor, and the second housing being configured to at least partially enclose the exchangeable energy supply device (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 29:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 26 further comprising a receiver (108) for receiving the at least one exchangeable energy supply device.
Regarding claim 30:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 29 wherein the receiver is arranged in the second housing (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 31:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 26 wherein the shaft axis or the motor axis is arranged in a forward/rearward direction of the power tool (see FIG. 1A).
Regarding claim 32:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 26 wherein the energy supply device is insertable into the power tool along an insertion direction (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 33:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 32 wherein the insertion direction is oriented parallel to the shaft axis and the motor axis (see FIGS. 3 and 10).
Regarding claim 34:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 32 but does not teach wherein the insertion direction is oriented perpendicular to the shaft axis and the motor axis.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the power tool of Wilbert by having the insertion direction oriented perpendicular to the shaft axis and the motor axis, as an alternative, which may be useful in cases where there is minimal clearance above the tool to remove or replace the battery.
Regarding claim 35:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 26 further comprising at least one sensor (144) for detecting a connection state of the power tool to a drill stand (last two sentences of [0033] can be interpreted this way).
Regarding claim 36:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 26 further comprising a drill stand interface (portion contacting 52) for connecting the power tool to a drill stand (52).
Regarding claim 37:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 36 wherein the drill stand interface is arranged on an underside of the power tool (see FIG. 1A).
Regarding claim 38:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 36 wherein the at least one exchangeable energy supply device is arranged in a continuation of the shaft axis or motor axis (e.g., it is arranged on an axis parallel to both).
Regarding claim 39:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 36 wherein the drill stand interface is arranged on a top side of the power tool (top and bottom are subjective terminology).
Regarding claim 40:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 36 wherein the drill stand interface is arranged on a first side wall or on a second side wall of the power tool (it is arranged on a bottom side wall of the power tool).
Regarding claim 41:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 28 wherein the second housing of the power tool is offset downward in a spatial direction in an upward/downward direction in comparison to the first housing (downward is subjective and based on the orientation of the tool when viewed).
Regarding claim 47:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 26 further comprising a protective device (108) with battery protection elements (protruding surfaces of 108 protect adjacent portions of battery 96).
Regarding claim 48:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 47 further comprising a first housing (28) and a second housing (portion of 24 receiving 108), the first housing being configured to at least partially enclose the motor, and the second housing being configured to at least partially enclose the exchangeable energy supply device (envisaged in FIG. 3) and wherein the battery protection elements protrude from the second housing of the power tool (shown in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 49:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 47 wherein the battery protection elements have a height greater than a protrusion of the energy supply device (e.g., in a direction toward the power tool, as envisaged in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 50:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 26 wherein the power tool is connectable to an accessory (96) by a connector (108), the accessory having a body and a supporting surface (portion connecting to 108), the supporting surface being designed such that a user of the power tool can support themselves on the supporting surface (an imprudent user could theoretically stand on battery 96 thereby supporting themselves on it).
Regarding claims 42, 45-46, and 51-52:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 42 but does not teach further comprising a (first) rear T handle and a (second) side handle, the side handle being rotatable.
However, Examiner takes official notice that rear T handles and rotatable side handles are old and well-known in the art and It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the power tool of the combination of Wilbert and Furuta by providing a T handle and a side handle, the side handle being rotatable, since this would provide additional portions of the tool to be gripped, making it more user friendly.
Regarding claim 54:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 26 further comprising the energy supply device protruding from the openings or the clearances in the second housing (Furuta, see FIG. 3).
Claims 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilbert, as applied above, and further in view of Widmer et al. US 2016/0159505.
Regarding claims 43 and 44:
The combination of Wilbert and Furuta teaches the power tool as recited in claim 26 but does not teach further comprising a display device, the display device being arranged at an inclination and embedded in an inclined display device plane.
Widmer discloses a power tool having a display device (29), the display device being arranged at an inclination and embedded in an inclined display device plane (see FIG. 5; cf. [0046], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the power tool of the combination of Wilbert and Furuta by including a display device, the display device being arranged at an inclination and embedded in an inclined display device plane, as taught by Widmer, since this would allow a user to obtain information about the tool when in use (Widmer, [0012]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection made in this action, necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408) 918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731