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 .
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 1-4, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (WO 2023130135 A1) in view of Zhamu (US 20180183107 A1).
Claim 1
James teaches: A power tool (1700), comprising:
a tool body (1704) comprising an output piece (1706) for outputting power, an electric motor (1400) for driving the output piece (1706) to move, a body housing (1707) for accommodating at least part of the electric motor (1400), and a body interface (interface within 1707 where battery pack is stored); and
a battery pack (100, 400, 600) detachably connectable to the body housing (1707) to supply power to the electric motor (1400), the battery pack (100, 400, 600) comprising a battery pack (100, 400, 600) interface for mating and connecting with the body interface (interface within 1707 where battery pack is stored) when the battery pack (100, 400, 600) is mounted to the tool body (1704), a battery pack (100, 400, 600) housing, and a cell unit disposed in the battery pack (100, 400, 600) housing and electrically connected to the battery pack (100, 400, 600) interface, wherein the cell unit is a pouch cell (lithium polymer pouch cell, see para. 0068) and the battery pack (100, 400, 600) has a nominal voltage less than or equal to 9 V (3.6V and 4.2V, see para. 0012; 3.6-4.2V or alternatively 2-10V, see para. 0068 and para. 0102).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
James does not explicitly disclose: and the battery pack has a volumetric energy density greater than or equal to 100 mWh/cm3 .
Zhamu teaches rechargeable lithium battery cells having high volumetric energy density and explains that commercially available lithium-ion batteries possess volumetric energy densities on the order of approximately 450-600 Wh/L (i.e., 460-600 mWh/cm^3) measured on the battery cell level, and further discloses battery cells having volumetric energy densities substantially exceeding those values, thereby exceeding the claimed minimum volumetric energy density of 100 mWh/cm^3. Zhamu further explains that increasing volumetric energy density allows greater energy storage within a smaller battery volume, thereby reducing battery size while maintaining battery capacity and runtime.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention filing to modify the pouch-cell battery pack of James by selecting lithium-ion pouch cells having the known high volumetric energy densities taught by Zhamu because doing so would have predictably enabled a smaller battery pack to store an equivalent or greater amount of energy, thereby improving compactness, ergonomics, portability, and runtime of the cordless power tool while utilizing known battery technology for its intended purpose.
Claim 2/1
James as modified by Zhamu teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 1, wherein the battery pack (100, 400, 600) has a volumetric energy density greater than or equal to 120 mWh/cm3 (with modification by Zhamu).
Claim 3/1
James as modified by Zhamu teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 1, but is silent to: wherein the battery pack has a gravimetric energy density greater than or equal to 100 mWh/g.
Zhamu teaches commercially available lithium-ion batteries exhibit a gravimetric energy density of approximately 150-220 Wh/kg (see para. 0094). Since 1 Wh/kg = 1 mWh/g, the disclosed gravimetric energy density corresponds to approximately 150-2020 mWh/g, which exceeds the claimed gravimetric energy density of greater than or equal to 100 mWh/g. Zhamu further explains that conventional lithium-ion batteries have relatively low gravimetric energy density due to inactive battery components (see para. 0092-0095) and teaches improving battery construction to achieve higher gravimetric and volumetric energy densities (see para. 0096).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to have employed lithium-ion pouch cells having the known gravimetric energy density taught by Zhamu in the removable pouch-cell battery pack of James because Zhamu expressly recognizes that increasing gravimetric energy density increases the amount of stored energy for a given battery weight while reducing inactive weight (see para. 0092-0096).
Claim 4/1
James as modified by Zhamu teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 1, wherein the battery pack (100, 400, 600) has a nominal voltage of 8 V (3.6V and 4.2V, see para. 0012; 3.6-4.2V or alternatively 2-10V, see para. 0068 and para. 0102; James).
Claim 8/1
James as modified by Zhamu teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 1, wherein the body housing (1707) comprises an electric motor (1400) accommodation portion for accommodating the electric motor (1400) and a grip for a user to hold, and when the battery pack (100, 400, 600) is coupled to the tool body (1704), at least part of the cell unit is located in the grip (of handle 1707).
Claim 9
James teaches: A battery pack (100, 400, 600) applicable to a power tool (1700), comprising:
a battery pack (100, 400, 600) housing formed with a coupling portion for connecting to the power tool (1700);
a cell unit disposed in the battery pack (100, 400, 600) housing; and
a battery pack (100, 400, 600) interface used for outputting power to the power tool (1700) and electrically connected to the cell unit, wherein the cell unit is a pouch cell (lithium polymer pouch cell, see para. 0068) and the battery pack (100, 400, 600) has a nominal voltage less than or equal to 9 V (3.6V and 4.2V, see para. 0012; 3.6-4.2V or alternatively 2-10V, see para. 0068 and para. 0102).
James however does not expressly disclose the battery pack as comprising: a volumetric energy density greater than or equal to 100 mWh/cm3.
Zhamu teaches rechargeable lithium battery cells having high volumetric energy density and explains that commercially available lithium-ion batteries possess volumetric energy densities on the order of approximately 450-600 Wh/L (i.e., 460-600 mWh/cm^3) measured on the battery cell level, and further discloses battery cells having volumetric energy densities substantially exceeding those values, thereby exceeding the claimed minimum volumetric energy density of 100 mWh/cm^3. Zhamu further explains that increasing volumetric energy density allows greater energy storage within a smaller battery volume, thereby reducing battery size while maintaining battery capacity and runtime.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention filing to modify the pouch-cell battery pack of James by selecting lithium-ion pouch cells having the known high volumetric energy densities taught by Zhamu because doing so would have predictably enabled a smaller battery pack to store an equivalent or greater amount of energy, thereby improving compactness, ergonomics, portability, and runtime of the cordless power tool while utilizing known battery technology for its intended purpose
Claim 10
James teaches: A battery pack (100, 400, 600) applicable to a power tool (1700) having a body interface (interface within 1707 where battery pack is stored), comprising:
a battery pack (100, 400, 600) housing comprising a battery pack (100, 400, 600) interface connectable to the body interface (interface within 1707 where battery pack is stored) of the power tool (1700) when the battery pack (100, 400, 600) is mounted to the power tool (1700); and a cell unit disposed in the battery pack (100, 400, 600) housing and electrically connected to the battery pack (100, 400, 600) interface, wherein the cell unit is a pouch cell (lithium polymer pouch cell, see para. 0068) and the battery pack (100, 400, 600) has a nominal voltage less than or equal to 9 V (3.6V and 4.2V, see para. 0012; 3.6-4.2V or alternatively 2-10V, see para. 0068 and para. 0102).
James however does not expressly disclose the battery pack as comprising: a gravimetric energy density greater than or equal to 100 mWh/g and a nominal voltage less than or equal to 9 V.
Zhamu teaches that commercially available lithium-ion batteries exhibit a gravimetric energy density of approximately 150-220 Wh/kg (see para. 0094). Since 1 Wh/kg = 1 mWh/g, the disclosed gravimetric energy density corresponds to approximately 150-2020 mWh/g, which exceeds the claimed gravimetric energy density of greater than or equal to 100 mWh/g. Zhamu further explains that conventional lithium-ion batteries have relatively low gravimetric energy density due to inactive battery components (see para. 0092-0095) and teaches improving battery construction to achieve higher gravimetric and volumetric energy densities (see para. 0096).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to have employed lithium-ion pouch cells having the known gravimetric energy density taught by Zhamu in the removable pouch-cell battery pack of James because Zhamu expressly recognizes that increasing gravimetric energy density increases the amount of stored energy for a given battery weight while reducing inactive weight (see para. 0092-0096).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James as modified by Zhamu in view of Gao (WO 2012055164 A1).
Claim 5/1
James as modified by Zhamu teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 1, wherein two cell units are disposed in the battery pack (100, 400, 600) housing, and the battery pack (100, 400, 600) has a weight less than or equal to 200 g.
Gao conversely teaches a battery assembly (325) for a handheld power tool (321), the battery assembly including a housing (327) accommodating a plurality of lithium-ion battery units (350a-350d) (see Abstract; Figs. 41-44). The battery assembly (325) is removably mounted within the grip portion (322B) of the handheld power tool by inserting the upper housing portion (327a) into a receiving space (328) of the grip and securing the assembly by a locking device (329) (Figs. 41-43). Gao further teaches that each battery unit (350a-350d) weighs approximately 41.5 g, and that the complete battery assembly (305/325) has a weight between approximately 175 g and 255g, depending upon the selected battery units and manufacturer. Accordingly, the reference expressly teaches embodiments of a battery assembly having a weight of approximately 175g, which is less than the claimed maximum weight of 200g.
PNG
media_image2.png
626
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the battery pack of James to have a weight less than or equal to as taught by Gao, because Gao expressly recognizes that reducing the overall battery assembly size and weight provides a compact profile, improves flexibility, portability, and user comfort, reduces the vertical height of the handheld power tool, and provides a more ergonomic configuration when mounted within the grip portion of the tool (see Abstract; Figs. 41-44).
Claim 6/1
James as modified by Zhamu teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach: wherein the battery pack (100, 400, 600) has a capacity greater than or equal to 1.5 Ah and less than or equal to 5 Ah.
Gao teaches a battery assembly (325) for a handheld power tool (321) comprising a housing (327) containing lithium-ion battery units (350a-350d) (see Abstract; Figs. 41-44). Gao further teaches that the battery assembly has an ampere-hour capacity between approximately 1.3 Ah and 2 Ah, depending upon the battery cells employed. Thus, Gao expressly teaches embodiments having a capacity of approximately 2 Ah, which falls within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1.5 Ah and less than or equal to 5 Ah.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to provide the battery pack of James with a battery capacity within the range taught by Gao because Gao recognizes that such a battery assembly provides a compact profile, good flexibility, improved portability, and a battery assembly that can be conveniently accommodated within the grip portion (322B) of a handheld power tool while providing sufficient operating runtime (Abstract; Fis. 41-44).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James as modified by Zhamu in view of Elfring (US 20180366697 A1).
Claim 7/1
James as modified by Zhamu teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach: wherein four cell units are disposed in the battery pack (100, 400, 600) housing, and the four cell units constitute a 2P cell group.
Elfering teaches a battery pack including an outer housing and a cell module supporting a plurality of battery cells (see para. 0006, 0032, Fig. 16). Elfering further teaches that the battery cells may be arranged as multiple strings of series-connected battery cells electrically connected in parallel. For example, Elfring expressly states: “The cell module may include a first string of series-connected battery cells electrically connected in parallel with a second string of series-connected cells” (see para. 0011). Elfring further expressly teaches battery packs having a 5S2P configuration, i.e., two parallel-connected strings of five series-connected battery cells (see para. 0262, Fig. 49B); and additionally teaches a 20S2P configuration, comprising two parallel-connected strings of twenty series-connected battery cells (see para. 0266, Fig. 51B).
Accordingly, Elfering expressly teaches a battery pack in which battery cells are arranged into two parallel-connected series strings, which constitutes a 2P battery configuration.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the battery pack of James to utilize the parallel battery string arrangement taught by Elfring because Elfring teaches that arranging battery cells into multiple parallel-connected series strings increases battery capacity, discharge capability, and power output while maintaining the desired operating voltage (para. 0011, 0034, 0262, 0266). A person having ordinary skill would have recognized that incorporating the known 2P battery configuration into the battery pack of James would have predictably improved runtime and current-delivery capability while employing only known battery interconnection techniques for their intended purpose.
Claims 11-13, and 17-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Zhang and Hitachi (US2013284480A1).
Claim 11
James teaches: A power tool (1700), comprising:
a tool body (1704) comprising an output piece (1706) for outputting power, an electric motor (1400) for driving the output piece (1706) to move, a body housing (1707) for accommodating at least part of the electric motor (1400), and a body interface (interface within 1707 where battery pack is stored); and
a battery pack (100, 400, 600) detachably connectable to the body housing (1707) to supply power to the electric motor (1400), the battery pack (100, 400, 600) comprising a battery pack (100, 400, 600) interface for mating and connecting with the body interface (interface within 1707 where battery pack is stored) when the battery pack (100, 400, 600) is mounted to the tool body (1704), a battery pack (100, 400, 600) housing, and a cell unit disposed in the battery pack (100, 400, 600) housing and electrically connected to the battery pack (100, 400, 600) interface, wherein the cell unit is a pouch cell (lithium polymer pouch cell, see para. 0068),
James however does not expressly disclose: a ratio of output power of the battery pack to a volume of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 1 W/cm3, and the volume of the battery pack is less than or equal to 150 cm3.
Zhang teaches designing a battery pack to achieve a high volumetric power density. Specifically, Zhang discloses an energy storage apparatus including lithium-ion cells connected in series, wherein the energy storage apparatus has an output power ranging from about 1200 W to 1800 W and a power-to-volume ratio ranging from about 3.8 W/cm^3 to 4 W/cm^3 (Zhang, Abstract; para. 0010, 0037, 0045, 0053, 0061). For example, Zhang discloses a battery pack producing 1200 W with a volume of approximately 308.7 cm^3, corresponding to approximately 3.887 W/cm^3 (para. 0034; Table 1). Likewise, Zhang discloses battery packs producing 1440 W, 1680 W, and 1800 W, each maintaining a power-to-volume ratio of approximately 3.887 W/cm^3 (see para. 0042, 0050, 0058; Tables 2-4). Accordingly, Zhang expressly teaches a battery pack having an output -power-to-volume ratio greater than the claimed minimum of 1 W/cm^3.
However, Zhang’s exemplary battery packs have volumes greater than 150 cm^3.
Hitachi on the other hand teaches reducing battery-pack size while maintaining tool performance. Specifically, Hitachi discloses compact battery packs having battery volumes of approximately 50.5 cm^3, 132.2 cm^3, and 165 cm^3, corresponding respectively to battery packs utilizing three, eight, and ten cylindrical lithium-ion cells (Hitachi, para. 0031, 0035; Figs. 3 and 5). Hitachi expressly states that downsizing and lightweight construction are primary objectives of the invention (see para. 0004-0009) and further teaches compact housing dimensions, for example a housing length of 150 mm or less and height of 90 mm or less, to improve portability (see para. 0007).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the battery pack of James using the high power-density battery design taught by Zhang while further adopting the compact battery sizing taught by Hitachi so that the battery pack occupies a volume of 150cm^3 or less. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Zhang expressly teaches maximizing output power per unit volume to achieve compact, high-performance battery packs (see para. 0010, 0037, 0045, 0053, and 0061), while Hitachi expressly teaches reducing battery volume without sacrificing tool performance to improve portability, ergonomics, and overall tool compactness (see para. 0004-0009, 0031, 0035). Combining these teachings merely represents the predictable use of known battery-pack optimization techniques to improve the size, portability, and packing efficiency of the battery-power tool while maintaining the desired electrical output, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 12/11
James as modified by Zhang and Hitachi teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 11, wherein two cell units are disposed in the battery pack (100, 400, 600) housing, and the two cell units are connected in series (series connection, see para. 0029, 0034-0037; Zhang).
Claim 13/11
James as modified by Zhang and Hitachi teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 11, wherein the output power of the battery pack (100, 400, 600) is greater than or equal to 140 W and less than or equal to 750 W (maximum power of at least 170 W, see para. 0003-0005, 0011, and 0065; James).
Claim 17/11
James as modified by Zhang and Hitachi teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 11, wherein the power tool (1700) is a handheld power tool (1700), the body housing (1707) comprises a grip for a user to hold, and the battery pack (100, 400, 600) is coupled to the grip (of handle 1707).
Claim 18/11
James as modified by Zhang and Hitachi teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 11, wherein the body housing (1707) comprises an electric motor (1400) housing portion for accommodating at least part of the electric motor (1400) and a grip for a user to hold, when the battery pack (100, 400, 600) is coupled to the tool body (1704), at least part of the cell unit is located in the grip (of handle 1707), the battery pack (100, 400, 600) is coupled to the grip along a direction of a first straight line;
James does not expressly disclose: I) a perimeter of an outer contour of a cross-section of a portion of the battery pack (100, 400, 600) in the grip (of handle 1707) in a plane perpendicular to the first straight line is greater than or equal to 10 cm and less than or equal to 14 cm, and II) the ratio of the output power of the battery pack (100, 400, 600) to the volume of the battery pack (100, 400, 600) is greater than or equal to 1 W/cm3.
As for limitation I, James teaches that the stem portion of the battery pack has a center width or diameter between approximately 1.0 in and 2 in (see para. 0066, 0069, 0070). A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was files would recognize that selecting a diameter within this expressly disclosed range necessarily results in a circular cross-sectional perimeter falling within the claimed 10cm to 14cm range. Selection of an optimum value from a known range represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable, absent evidence of criticality, and would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
As for limitation II, Zhang teaches designing a battery pack to achieve a high volumetric power density. Specifically, Zhang discloses an energy storage apparatus including lithium-ion cells connected in series, wherein the energy storage apparatus has an output power ranging from about 1200 W to 1800 W and a power-to-volume ratio ranging from about 3.8 W/cm^3 to 4 W/cm^3 (Zhang, Abstract; para. 0010, 0037, 0045, 0053, 0061). For example, Zhang discloses a battery pack producing 1200 W with a volume of approximately 308.7 cm^3, corresponding to approximately 3.887 W/cm^3 (para. 0034; Table 1). Likewise, Zhang discloses battery packs producing 1440 W, 1680 W, and 1800 W, each maintaining a power-to-volume ratio of approximately 3.887 W/cm^3 (see para. 0042, 0050, 0058; Tables 2-4). Accordingly, Zhang expressly teaches a battery pack having an output -power-to-volume ratio greater than the claimed minimum of 1 W/cm^3.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the battery pack of James using the high power-density battery design taught by Zhang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Zhang expressly teaches maximizing output power per unit volume to achieve compact, high-performance battery packs (see para. 0010, 0037, 0045, 0053, and 0061).
Claim 19/18/11
James as modified by Zhang and Hitachi teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 18, wherein an extension plane of the pouch cell (lithium polymer pouch cell, see para. 0068) is basically parallel to the first straight line.
Claim 20/11
James as modified by Zhang and Hitachi teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 11, wherein the body housing (1707) comprises an electric motor (1400) housing portion for accommodating at least part of the electric motor (1400) and a grip for a user to hold, the cell unit is the pouch cell (lithium polymer pouch cell, see para. 0068), when the battery pack (100, 400, 600) is coupled to the tool body (1704), at least part of the cell unit is located in the grip, the battery pack (100, 400, 600) is coupled to the grip along a direction of a first straight line,
James does not expressly teach: I) an area of a cross-section of a portion of the battery pack (100, 400, 600) in the grip in a plane perpendicular to the first straight line is greater than or equal to 8 cm2 and less than or equal to 14 cm2, and II) the ratio of the output power of the battery pack (100, 400, 600) to the volume of the battery pack (100, 400, 600) is greater than or equal to 1 W/cm3.
As for limitation I, James expressly identifies the diameter of the stem as a design parameter (1-2 in) for ergonomic gripping and packaging (see para. 0066, 0069, 0070). Considering the stem is substantially cylindrical, the cross-sectional area can be interpreted as:
A
=
π
r
2
and using the disclosed range,
1
i
n
=
2.54
c
m
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
, thus
A
r
e
a
≈
5.1
c
m
2
, and
2
i
n
=
5.08
c
m
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
, thus
A
r
e
a
≈
20.3
c
m
2
. This overlaps James’s
8
c
m
2
→
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
≈
2.19
c
m
and
14
c
m
2
→
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
≈
4.22
c
m
.
Selecting a diameter within that disclosed range that necessarily produces a cross-sectional area between 8 and 14 cm^2 would have been an obvious matter of design choice absent evidence that the claimed subrange is critical or yields unexpected results.
As for limitation II, Zhang teaches designing a battery pack to achieve a high volumetric power density. Specifically, Zhang discloses an energy storage apparatus including lithium-ion cells connected in series, wherein the energy storage apparatus has an output power ranging from about 1200 W to 1800 W and a power-to-volume ratio ranging from about 3.8 W/cm^3 to 4 W/cm^3 (Zhang, Abstract; para. 0010, 0037, 0045, 0053, 0061). For example, Zhang discloses a battery pack producing 1200 W with a volume of approximately 308.7 cm^3, corresponding to approximately 3.887 W/cm^3 (para. 0034; Table 1). Likewise, Zhang discloses battery packs producing 1440 W, 1680 W, and 1800 W, each maintaining a power-to-volume ratio of approximately 3.887 W/cm^3 (see para. 0042, 0050, 0058; Tables 2-4). Accordingly, Zhang expressly teaches a battery pack having an output -power-to-volume ratio greater than the claimed minimum of 1 W/cm^3.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the battery pack of James using the high power-density battery design taught by Zhang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Zhang expressly teaches maximizing output power per unit volume to achieve compact, high-performance battery packs (see para. 0010, 0037, 0045, 0053, and 0061).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James as modified by Zhang and Hitachi in view of Zhamu.
Claim 14/11
James as modified by Zhang and Hitachi teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 11, wherein the battery pack (100, 400, 600) has a gravimetric energy density greater than or equal to 100 mWh/g.
Zhamu teaches commercially available lithium-ion batteries exhibit a gravimetric energy density of approximately 150-220 Wh/kg (see para. 0094). Since 1 Wh/kg = 1 mWh/g, the disclosed gravimetric energy density corresponds to approximately 150-2020 mWh/g, which exceeds the claimed gravimetric energy density of greater than or equal to 100 mWh/g. Zhamu further explains that conventional lithium-ion batteries have relatively low gravimetric energy density due to inactive battery components (see para. 0092-0095) and teaches improving battery construction to achieve higher gravimetric and volumetric energy densities (see para. 0096).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to have employed lithium-ion pouch cells having the known gravimetric energy density taught by Zhamu in the removable pouch-cell battery pack of James because Zhamu expressly recognizes that increasing gravimetric energy density increases the amount of stored energy for a given battery weight while reducing inactive weight (see para. 0092-0096).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James as modified by Zhang and Hitachi in view of Gao.
Claim 15/11
James as modified by Zhang and Hitachi teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 11, wherein two cell units are disposed in the battery pack (100, 400, 600) housing, and the battery pack (100, 400, 600) has a weight less than or equal to 180 g.
Gao conversely teaches a battery assembly (325) for a handheld power tool (321), the battery assembly including a housing (327) accommodating a plurality of lithium-ion battery units (350a-350d) (see Abstract; Figs. 41-44). The battery assembly (325) is removably mounted within the grip portion (322B) of the handheld power tool by inserting the upper housing portion (327a) into a receiving space (328) of the grip and securing the assembly by a locking device (329) (Figs. 41-43). Gao further teaches that each battery unit (350a-350d) weighs approximately 41.5 g, and that the complete battery assembly (305/325) has a weight between approximately 175 g and 255g, depending upon the selected battery units and manufacturer. Accordingly, the reference expressly teaches embodiments of a battery assembly having a weight of approximately 175g, which is less than the claimed maximum weight of 200g.
PNG
media_image2.png
626
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the battery pack of James to have a weight less than or equal to as taught by Gao, because Gao expressly recognizes that reducing the overall battery assembly size and weight provides a compact profile, improves flexibility, portability, and user comfort, reduces the vertical height of the handheld power tool, and provides a more ergonomic configuration when mounted within the grip portion of the tool (see Abstract; Figs. 41-44).
Claim 16/11
James as modified by Zhang and Hitachi teaches: The power tool (1700) according to claim 11, wherein the battery pack (100, 400, 600) has a capacity greater than or equal to 1.5 Ah and less than or equal to 5 Ah.
Gao teaches a battery assembly (325) for a handheld power tool (321) comprising a housing (327) containing lithium-ion battery units (350a-350d) (see Abstract; Figs. 41-44). Gao further teaches that the battery assembly has an ampere-hour capacity between approximately 1.3 Ah and 2 Ah, depending upon the battery cells employed. Thus, Gao expressly teaches embodiments having a capacity of approximately 2 Ah, which falls within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1.5 Ah and less than or equal to 5 Ah.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to provide the battery pack of James with a battery capacity within the range taught by Gao because Gao recognizes that such a battery assembly provides a compact profile, good flexibility, improved portability, and a battery assembly that can be conveniently accommodated within the grip portion (322B) of a handheld power tool while providing sufficient operating runtime (Abstract; Fis. 41-44).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED F SECK whose telephone number is (571)272-4638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at (571) 272-3560. 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.
/AHMED F SECK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights