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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“front end and a rear end, and having a motor opening,” in line 3 should read “front end, a rear end, a motor opening, and a first battery dock opening,” (to make clear that the first battery dock opening is part of the housing and not defined by the motor opening).
“motor and a first battery dock opening;” in line 4 should read “motor;” (this change needs to be made if the previous suggested change is made).
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informality: “proximately” in line 3 should read “proximate”.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“opening configured” in line 2 should read “opening being configured”.
“where” in line 3 should read “and wherein”.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informality:
“motor opening,” in line 3 should read “motor opening and a first battery dock opening,” (to make clear that the first battery dock opening is part of the housing and not defined by the motor opening).
“motor and a first battery dock opening;” in line 4 should read “motor;” (this change needs to be made if the previous suggested change is made).
“are removably” in line 12 should read “are respectively removably”.
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informality: “proximately” in line 3 should read “proximate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 recites the limitation “the first battery dock removably coupled to the housing through the first battery dock opening” in line 9. However, it is not disclosed in any part of the parent application (application#18/522,948) of the instant continuation application that battery dock 40 is removably coupled to housing 10 (emphasis added). Thus, the limitation constitutes new matter.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 26 recites the limitation “where the second battery dock is removably coupled to the housing through the second battery dock opening” in lines 3-4. However, it is not disclosed in any part of the parent application (application#18/522,948) of the instant continuation application that battery dock 40 is removably coupled to housing 10 (emphasis added). Thus, the limitation constitutes new matter.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 31 recites the limitation “without the first battery being contacted by the first rest surface or the second rest surface” in lines 4-5. However, this is not disclosed in any part of the parent application (application#18/522,948) of the instant continuation application. Instead, Paragraph 0026 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application discloses that the impact wrench 10 can be laid on a lateral side of the housing and supported by the first and second rest surfaces 60 and 64 without the first battery 38 being contacted by a support surface (emphasis added). Thus, the limitation constitutes new matter. The examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “without the first battery being contacted by a support surface” in order to overcome this rejection.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 33 recites the limitation “wherein the first battery dock and the second battery dock are removably coupled to the housing through the first battery dock opening and the second battery dock opening” in lines 12-13. However, it is not disclosed in any part of the parent application (application#18/522,948) of the instant continuation application that battery docks 40 are removably coupled to housing 10 (emphasis added). Thus, the limitation constitutes new matter.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 40 recites the limitation “without the first battery being contacted by the first rest surface or the second rest surface” in lines 5-6. However, this is not disclosed in any part of the parent application (application#18/522,948) of the instant continuation application. Instead, Paragraph 0026 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application discloses that the impact wrench 10 can be laid on a lateral side of the housing and supported by the first and second rest surfaces 60 and 64 without the first battery 38 being contacted by a support surface (emphasis added). Thus, the limitation constitutes new matter. The examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “without the first battery being contacted by a support surface” in order to overcome this rejection.
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.
Claims 23 and 27-40 are 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.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the switch" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a switch”.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the second battery" near the right end of line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a second battery”.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the second battery dock opening," in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a second battery dock opening,”.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the front end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a front end”.
Claims 28-32 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 27.
Claims 34-40 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 33.
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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 2019/0255687), hereinafter Schneider, in view of Haneda et al. (US 2017/0203462), hereinafter Haneda.
Regarding claim 21, Schneider discloses an impact wrench (10 in Figures 1 and 2), comprising:
a motor (42 in Figure 2);
a housing (the “cooperating clamshell halves” described in Paragraph 0026 lines 11-13, collectively) having a front end (right end of 18 in Figure 2) and a rear end (left end of 26 in Figure 2), and having a motor opening (the space inside the motor housing portion 18 shown in Figure 2, in which motor 42 is disposed), the motor opening (the space inside the motor housing portion 18 shown in Figure 2, in which motor 42 is disposed) defining an outer circumference of the motor (42) (apparent from Figure 2);
a hammer (204 in Figures 2 and 3) driven by the motor (42) (Paragraphs 0033-0035 and 0043);
an anvil (the leftmost portion of 200 comprising lugs 220 in Figure 4B, which portion extends perpendicularly relative to the rest of 200) configured to be periodically engaged with the hammer (204) (Paragraphs 0034, 0035, and 0043), and configured to drive an output drive (232 in Figure 4B) (Paragraphs 0036 and 0033);
a first battery dock (38 in Figures 1 and 2) configured to receive a first battery (34 in Figure 1) for supplying power to the motor (42) (Paragraphs 0027-0029); and
a handle (26 in Figures 1 and 2) disposed proximate to the rear end (left end of 26 in Figure 2) of the housing (apparent from Figure 2).
However, Schneider does not disclose: the housing has a first battery dock opening; the first battery dock is removably coupled to the housing through the first battery dock opening; and the first battery dock opening is disposed between the motor and the handle and within an outer boundary of the motor opening.
Haneda teaches that it was known to provide a housing (11 in Figures 1-5 or 8) of an electrical power tool (the electrical power tool shown in Figures 1-5; or the electrical power tool shown in Figure 8) with a first battery dock opening (the right opening in housing 11 shown in Figure 4/8 in which 25a-c are disposed) and a second battery dock opening (the left opening in housing 11 shown in Figure 4/8 in which 25a-c are disposed), wherein a first battery dock (25a-c collectively on the right side of Figure 4/8) is coupled to the housing (11) through the first battery dock opening (apparent when Figure 4/8 is viewed in relation to Figure 5), wherein a second battery dock (25a-c collectively on the left side of Figure 4/8) is coupled to the housing (11) through the second battery dock opening (apparent when Figure 4/8 is viewed in relation to Figure 5), and wherein the first battery dock opening (the right opening in housing 11 shown in Figure 4/8 in which 25a-c are disposed) and the second battery dock opening (the left opening in housing 11 shown in Figure 4/8 in which 25a-c are disposed) are disposed between a motor (23 in Figure 3) and a handle (13 in Figure 3) and within an outer boundary of a motor opening (the space inside housing 11 in which motor 23 is disposed) (apparent when Figures 3-5 are viewed in relation to one another; or apparent when Figures 5 and 8 are viewed in relation to each other), in order to obviate the need to power the electrical power tool (the electrical power tool shown in Figures 1-5; or the electrical power tool shown in Figure 8) with a single large and expensive high-voltage-standard battery and allow the electrical power tool to be powered by two smaller, cheaper, and commonly used lower-voltage-standard batteries while providing satisfactory weight balance in the left and right direction of the electric power tool so that the electrical power tool can be easily gripped and held by a user (Paragraphs 0004, 0005, 0007, 0036, 0044, and 0043 and Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the housing of Schneider so that it has a first battery dock opening and a second battery dock opening and to have substituted the first battery dock of Schneider with a first battery dock that is coupled to the housing through the first battery dock opening and a second battery dock that is coupled to the housing through the second battery dock opening, wherein the first battery dock opening and the second battery dock opening are disposed between the motor and the handle and within an outer boundary of the motor opening, as taught by Haneda, because doing so would obviate the need to power the impact wrench with a single large and expensive high-voltage-standard battery and allow the impact wrench to be powered by two smaller, cheaper, and commonly used lower-voltage-standard batteries while providing satisfactory weight balance in the left and right direction of the impact wrench so that the impact wrench can be easily gripped and held by a user.
Schneider in view of Haneda teaches all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly teach: the first battery dock is removably coupled to the housing through the first battery dock opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the first battery dock to be removably coupled to the housing through the first battery dock opening, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Please note that applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations in any part of the instant application.
Regarding claim 22, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches that the first battery dock opening (the right opening in housing 11 shown in Figure 4 in which 25a-c are disposed) is adjacent to the handle (26 of Schneider) (because Haneda teaches in Figures 4 and 5 that the right opening in housing 11 shown in Figure 4 in which 25a-c are disposed is adjacent to handle 13), and wherein the motor (42 of Schneider) and the output drive (232 of Schneider) are disposed proximately to the front end (right end of 18 in Figure 2 of Schneider) of the housing with reference to the first battery dock (because Haneda teaches in Figure 3 that the first battery dock 25a-c collectively is behind the motor 23, and Schneider discloses in Figure 2 that the motor 42 and the output drive 232 are disposed close to the front end [right end of 18] of the housing).
Regarding claim 23, Schneider discloses that the switch (62 in Figure 2) is disposed above a bottom surface of the output drive (232) (apparent when Figure 4 is viewed in relation to Figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, Schneider discloses that the output drive (232) and the motor (42) are coaxial (apparent when Figure 4 is viewed in relation to Figure 2).
Regarding claim 25, Schneider discloses that the housing (the “cooperating clamshell halves” described in Paragraph 0026 lines 11-13, collectively) is a two-piece housing (the “cooperating clamshell halves” described in Paragraph 0026 lines 11-13, collectively) enclosing opposite sides of the motor (42) and defining the handle (26) (Paragraph 0026 lines 11-13, apparent when Figure 1 is viewed in relation to Figure 2).
Regarding claim 26, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches that the housing (the “cooperating clamshell halves” of Schneider collectively, as modified in view of Haneda) further includes a second battery dock opening (the left opening in housing 11 shown in Figure 4/8 of Haneda in which 25a-c are disposed), the second battery dock opening configured to receive a second battery dock (25a-c collectively on the left side of Figure 4/8 of Haneda) (apparent when Figure 4/8 of Haneda is viewed in relation to Figure 5 of Haneda), where the second battery dock (25a-c collectively on the left side of Figure 4/8 of Haneda) is coupled to the housing through the second battery dock opening (apparent when Figure 4/8 of Haneda is viewed in relation to Figure 5 of Haneda).
However, Schneider in view of Haneda does not expressly teach: where the second battery dock is removably coupled to the housing through the second battery dock opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the second battery dock to be removably coupled to the housing through the second battery dock opening, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Please note that applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations in any part of the instant application.
Regarding claim 27, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches that the first battery dock (25a-c collectively on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) and the second battery dock (25a-c collectively on the left side of Figure 8 of Haneda) comprise guide rails (25b in Figure 5 of Haneda) such that the first battery (31 on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) and the second battery (31 on the left side of Figure 8 of Haneda) are respectively slid down into the first battery dock (25a-c collectively on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) and the second battery dock (25a-c collectively on the left side of Figure 8 of Haneda) to couple the first battery and the second battery to the impact wrench (10 of Schneider as modified in view of Haneda) (Paragraphs 0046, 0039, and 0035 of Haneda).
Regarding claim 28, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches that the guide rails (25b of Haneda) of the first battery dock (25a-c collectively on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) and the second battery dock (25a-c collectively on the left side of Figure 8 of Haneda) are oriented in a V-shape relative to each other with top surfaces of the guide rails (25b of Haneda) being spaced at a different distance from each other than bottom surfaces of the guide rails (it is apparent when Figure 8 of Haneda is viewed in relation to Figure 5 of Haneda that guide rails 25b of the two battery docks 25a-c collectively are oriented in a V-shape relative to each other with their top surfaces being spaced farther from each other than their bottom surfaces).
Regarding claim 29, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches a first rest surface (shown in an annotated version of Figure 1 of Haneda, hereinafter Figure 1x, below) adjacent to the first battery (31 on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) and extending outward to at least an outer surface of the first battery (apparent from Figure 1x below).
PNG
media_image1.png
714
1062
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1x: an annotated version of Figure 1 of Haneda
Regarding claim 30, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches that the first rest surface (shown in Figure 1x above) circumscribes a portion of at least two sides (left side and bottom side in Figure 1 of Haneda) of the first battery dock (25a-c collectively on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) (apparent from Figure 1x above).
Regarding claim 31, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches a second rest surface (shown in an annotated version of Figure 1 of Schneider, hereinafter Figure 1y, below) disposed on a lateral side of a front half (right half in Figure 1 of Schneider) of the impact wrench (apparent from Figure 1y below), the first rest surface (shown in Figure 1x above) being disposed on a lateral side of a rear half of the impact wrench (because Haneda teaches in Figure 1x that “first rest surface” is disposed on a lateral side of a rear half of the electric power tool), wherein the impact wrench (10 of Schneider as modified in view of Haneda) can be laid on a lateral side (right side in Figure 1 of Schneider) of the housing and supported by the first and second rest surfaces without the first battery (31 on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) being contacted by the first rest surface or the second rest surface (clear when Figure 1x is viewed in relation Figure 1y).
PNG
media_image2.png
792
1242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1y: an annotated version of Figure 1 of Schneider
Regarding claim 32, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly teach: the first and second rest surfaces are coplanar.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first and/or second rest surfaces so that they are coplanar because Applicant has not disclosed that the first and second rest surfaces being coplanar provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the first and second rest surfaces of Schneider in view of Haneda because both options prevent the first battery from contacting a support surface when the impact wrench is laid on a lateral side of the housing.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Schneider in view of Haneda to obtain the invention as specified in claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, Schneider discloses an impact wrench (10 in Figures 1 and 2), comprising:
a motor (42 in Figure 2);
a housing (the “cooperating clamshell halves” described in Paragraph 0026 lines 11-13, collectively) having a motor opening (the space inside the motor housing portion 18 shown in Figure 2, in which motor 42 is disposed), the motor opening (the space inside the motor housing portion 18 shown in Figure 2, in which motor 42 is disposed) defining an outer circumference of the motor (42) (apparent from Figure 2);
a hammer (204 in Figures 2 and 3) driven by the motor (42) (Paragraphs 0033-0035 and 0043);
an anvil (the leftmost portion of 200 comprising lugs 220 in Figure 4B, which portion extends perpendicularly relative to the rest of 200) configured to be periodically engaged with the hammer (204) (Paragraphs 0034, 0035, and 0043), and configured to drive an output drive (232 in Figure 4B) (Paragraphs 0036 and 0033);
a first battery dock (38 in Figures 1 and 2) configured to receive a first battery (34 in Figure 1) for supplying power to the motor (42) (Paragraphs 0027-0029).
However, Schneider does not disclose: the housing has a first battery dock opening; a second battery dock configured to receive a second battery for supplying power to the motor; and the first battery dock and the second battery dock are removably coupled to the housing through the first battery dock opening and the second battery dock opening, and the first battery dock and the second battery dock are disposed at opposite lateral sides of the impact wrench from each other and within an outer boundary of the motor opening.
Haneda teaches that it was known to provide an electrical power tool (the electrical power tool shown in Figures 1-5; or the electrical power tool shown in Figure 8) with: a housing (11 in Figures 1-5 or 8) having a first battery dock opening (the right opening in housing 11 shown in Figure 4/8 in which 25a-c are disposed) and a second battery dock opening (the left opening in housing 11 shown in Figure 4/8 in which 25a-c are disposed), a first battery dock (25a-c collectively on the right side of Figure 4/8) configured to receive a first battery (31 on the right side of Figure 4/8) for supplying power to a motor (23 in Figure 3) (Paragraph 0034-0036), and a second battery dock (25a-c collectively on the left side of Figure 4/8) configured to receive a second battery (31 on the left side of Figure 4/8) for supplying power to the motor (Paragraph 0034-0036), wherein the first battery dock (the battery dock 25 on the right side of Figure 8) and the second battery dock (the battery dock 25 on the left side of Figure 8) are coupled to the housing (11) through the first battery dock opening and the second battery dock opening (apparent when Figure 4/8 is viewed in relation to Figure 5), and the first battery dock (25a-c collectively on the right side of Figure 4/8) and the second battery dock (25a-c collectively on the left side of Figure 4/8) are disposed at opposite lateral sides of the electrical power tool from each other and within an outer boundary of a motor opening (the space inside housing 11 in which motor 23 is disposed) (apparent when Figures 3-5 are viewed in relation to one another; or apparent when Figures 5 and 8 are viewed in relation to each other), in order to obviate the need to power the electrical power tool (the electrical power tool shown in Figures 1-5; or the electrical power tool shown in Figure 8) with a single large and expensive high-voltage-standard battery and allow the electrical power tool to be powered by two smaller, cheaper, and commonly used lower-voltage-standard batteries while providing satisfactory weight balance in the left and right direction of the electric power tool so that the electrical power tool can be easily gripped and held by a user (Paragraphs 0004, 0005, 0007, 0036, 0044, and 0043 and Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the housing of Schneider so that it has a first battery dock opening and a second battery dock opening and to have substituted the first battery dock of Schneider with a first battery dock that is coupled to the housing through the first battery dock opening and a second battery dock that is coupled to the housing through the second battery dock opening, wherein the first battery dock and the second battery dock are disposed at opposite lateral sides of the impact wrench from each other and within an outer boundary of the motor opening, as taught by Haneda, because doing so would obviate the need to power the impact wrench with a single large and expensive high-voltage-standard battery and allow the impact wrench to be powered by two smaller, cheaper, and commonly used lower-voltage-standard batteries while providing satisfactory weight balance in the left and right direction of the impact wrench so that the impact wrench can be easily gripped and held by a user.
However, Schneider in view of Haneda does not expressly teach: the first battery dock and the second battery dock are removably coupled to the housing through the first battery dock opening and the second battery dock opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the first battery dock and the second battery dock to be removably coupled to the housing through the first battery dock opening and the second battery dock opening, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Please note that applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations in any part of the instant application.
Regarding claim 34, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches that the first battery dock opening (the right opening in housing 11 shown in Figure 4/8 in which 25a-c are disposed) and the second battery dock opening (the left opening in housing 11 shown in Figure 4/8 in which 25a-c are disposed) are disposed between the motor (42 of Schneider) and a handle (26 in Figures 1 and 2 of Schneider) (because Haneda teaches in Figure 3 that the right and left openings in housing 11 in which 25a-c are disposed are disposed between motor 23 and handle 13), the handle (26 of Schneider) including a switch (62 in Figure 2 of Schneider) to turn the motor (42 of Schneider) on and off (Paragraphs 0029 and 0026).
Regarding claim 35, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches that the first battery dock (25a-c collectively on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda), the second battery dock (25a-c collectively on the left side of Figure 8 of Haneda), and the handle (26 of Schneider) are proximate to a rear end (left end of 26 in Figure 2 of Schneider) of the housing (because Haneda teaches in Figure 5 that both battery docks 25a-c collectively and handle 13 are proximate to a rear end [left end in Figure 5] of housing 11), and wherein the motor (42 of Schneider) and the output drive (232 of Schneider) are disposed proximately to the front end (right end of 18 in Figure 2 of Schneider) of the housing with reference to the first battery dock and the second battery dock (because Haneda teaches in Figure 3 that the first and second battery docks 25a-c collectively are behind the motor 23, and Schneider discloses in Figure 2 that the motor 42 and the output drive 232 are disposed close to the front end [right end of 18] of the housing).
Regarding claim 36, Schneider discloses that the output drive (232) and the motor (42) are coaxial (apparent when Figure 4 is viewed in relation to Figure 2).
Regarding claim 37, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches that the first battery dock (25a-c collectively on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) and the second battery dock (25a-c collectively on the left side of Figure 8 of Haneda) comprise electrical connectors (25a in Figure 5 of Haneda) and guide rails (25b in Figure 5 of Haneda) (Paragraph 0035, 0038, and 0039 of Haneda), the first battery (31 on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) and the second battery (31 on the left side of Figure 8 of Haneda) being slid down into the first battery dock (25a-c collectively on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) and the second battery dock (25a-c collectively on the left side of Figure 8 of Haneda), respectively, to couple the first battery and the second battery to the impact wrench (10 of Schneider as modified in view of Haneda) (Paragraphs 0046, 0039, and 0035 of Haneda).
Regarding claim 38, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches that the guide rails (25b of Haneda) of the first battery dock (25a-c collectively on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) and the second battery dock (25a-c collectively on the left side of Figure 8 of Haneda) are oriented in a V-shape relative to each other with top surfaces of the guide rails (25b of Haneda) being spaced at a different distance from each other than bottom surfaces of the guide rails (it is apparent when Figure 8 of Haneda is viewed in relation to Figure 5 of Haneda that guide rails 25b of the two battery docks 25a-c collectively are oriented in a V-shape relative to each other with their top surfaces being spaced farther from each other than their bottom surfaces).
Regarding claim 39, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches a first rest surface (shown in Figure 1x above) adjacent to the first battery (31 on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) and extending outward to at least an outer surface of the first battery (apparent from Figure 1x above), wherein the first rest surface (shown in Figure 1x above) circumscribes a portion of at least two sides (left side and bottom side in Figure 1 of Haneda) of the first battery (31 on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) (apparent from Figure 1x above).
Regarding claim 40, Schneider in view of Haneda teaches a second rest surface (shown in Figure 1y above), the second rest surface (shown in Figure 1y above) being disposed on a lateral side of a front half (right half in Figure 1 of Schneider) of the impact wrench (apparent from Figure 1y above), the first rest surface (shown in Figure 1x above) being disposed on a lateral side of a rear half of the impact wrench (because Haneda teaches in Figure 1x that “first rest surface” is disposed on a lateral side of a rear half of the electric power tool), wherein the impact wrench (10 of Schneider as modified in view of Haneda) can be laid on a lateral side (right side in Figure 1 of Schneider) of the housing and supported by the first rest surface and the second rest surface without the first battery (31 on the right side of Figure 8 of Haneda) being contacted by the first rest surface or the second rest surface (clear when Figure 1x is viewed in relation Figure 1y).
However, Schneider in view of Haneda does not expressly teach: the second rest surface coplanar to the first rest surface.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first and/or second rest surfaces so that they are coplanar because Applicant has not disclosed that the first and second rest surfaces being coplanar provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the first and second rest surfaces of Schneider in view of Haneda because both options prevent the first battery from contacting a support surface when the impact wrench is laid on a lateral side of the housing.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Schneider in view of Haneda to obtain the invention as specified in claim 40.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731