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 the Appeal Brief filed on 9/3/2024. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Prosecution Re-opened
In view of the appeal brief filed on 9/03/2024, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. Specifically, in regards to the Applicants arguments on claim 16, Examiner finds applicant’s remarks persuasive. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Response to arguments
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1 Appellant asserts (pg. 5):
It would not have been obvious to modify Fauteux in view of Lee or Pham, as proposed by the Examiner. Even if one could have modified Fauteux in view of Lee and Pham, the combined disclosures would not have taught a charging hub with a battery pack operable to provide DC power to electrical connectors in satellite device receptacles and recharge batteries of satellite devices.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the combined teachings of Fauteux in view of Lee or Pham where The Examiner uses Pham to teach the claim language:
“the battery pack (202, Fig. 2) is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212) and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of devices ([0036] battery 202 is electrically connected to the power tool adapter and charger 200. DC Output 206 voltages are fed as inputs to multiple USB Outputs 210 and DC power outputs 212 having n-pin connector, mini-DIN, lugs, sockets, pins and tabs, for supplying voltages such as 5V-28V).
Since Fauteux teaches the electrical contacts are used to charge the battery packs of the plurality of satellite devices ([0016][0056]) and Pham teaches providing DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212), one of ordinary skill in the art can see that the combined teachings of Fauteaux and Pham teaches the DC power provided to the electrical connectors will recharge the batteries of Fauteaux’s devices”.
And further asserts (pg. 5):
Fauteux does not disclose a battery receptacle positioned on the body that provides power to the charger 10. Thus, Fauteux does not disclose a battery pack removably coupled to the battery receptacle to provide DC power to electrical contacts in a plurality of satellite device receptacles to recharge the rechargeable batteries of the satellite devices.
In response:
The Examiner does not use Fauteax alone but the combined teachings of Fauteax, Lee, and Pham to teach a battery receptacle positioned on the body (313 Fig. 3b of Lee); and a battery pack removably coupled to the housing at the battery receptacle (306,Fig. 3b and [0067] of Lee ) is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212 of Pham) and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of devices ([0036] of Pham).
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1 Appellant asserts (pg. 6):
Although Lee discloses an emergency condition in which power may flow out of the attached battery pack 306 and into the power supply 300, Lee specifically teaches against using the supplied power for providing DC power to output ports.
And further asserts:
Rather, Lee teaches "in this discharging mode, the DC power supply 300 is configured to provide a reversed series path (thereby disable the forward path of charging the DC power pack 306 and driving the DC power tool) for current to leave the DC power pack 306." See Para. [0063}. Therefore, Lee does not teach providing DC power to electrical contacts in a plurality of satellite device receptacles to recharge rechargeable batteries of attached satellite devices
In response:
The Examiner does not use Lee to teach “provid[ing] DC power to the electrical connectors” as described above.
Additionally, In regards to Appellants assertion that “Lee specifically teaches against using the supplied power for providing DC power to output ports…. See Para. [0063}”, [0063] of Lee speaks in regards to the battery pack 306 discharging to power the AC power tool (…to from the normal DC mode to discharging mode allowing the AC output from the detachable DC-to-AC power inverter 303 to power up the AC electric power tool. In this discharging mode, the DC power supply 300 is configured to provide a reversed series path (thereby disable the forward path of charging the DC power pack 306 and driving the DC power tool) for current to leave the DC power pack 306 (if it is connected to the DC power supply 300) and the rechargeable battery unit 305 via the DC-to-DC converter 304 and the detachable DC-to-AC power inverter 303, and thereby energizes the AC power tool).
This does not prevent Lee’s Battery pack 306 from nor teaches away from the “provid[ing] DC power to the electrical connectors” as claimed.
Furthermore, Lee states In a yet further aspect of the present invention, it provides a kit that includes the DC power supply 300 and one or more rechargeable battery packs 306, which can be recharged by the DC power supply 300. Preferably the rechargeable battery packs 306 are for use in the battery-driven cordless DC power tools.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1 Appellant asserts (pg. 6-7):
On page 5 of the Final Office action mailed March 4, 2024 (hereinafter "the Office action"), the Examiner acknowledges that Fauteux and Lee, alone or in combination, fail to disclose a battery pack operable to provide DC power to recharge batteries. The Examiner then turns to Pham….Pham does not disclose a battery pack operable to provide DC power to electrical contacts in a plurality of receptacles to recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of satellite devices.
In response:
Claim 1 does not claim “a battery pack operable to provide DC power to electrical contacts in a plurality of receptacles to recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of satellite devices.”
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the combined teachings of Fauteux in view of Lee or Pham where The Examiner uses Pham to teach the claim language:
“the battery pack (202, Fig. 2) is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212) and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of devices ([0036] battery 202 is electrically connected to the power tool adapter and charger 200. DC Output 206 voltages are fed as inputs to multiple USB Outputs 210 and DC power outputs 212 having n-pin connector, mini-DIN, lugs, sockets, pins and tabs, for supplying voltages such as 5V-28V)..
And further asserts (pg. 7):
Thus, even if combined, none of the cited references teaches providing DC power to electrical contacts in a satellite device receptacle to recharge batteries of satellite devices.
In response:
Claim 1 does not claim “providing DC power to electrical contacts in a satellite device receptacle to recharge batteries of satellite devices.”
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the combined teachings of Fauteux in view of Lee or Pham to teach the claim language of claims 1,13 and 16 as specified above.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1 Appellant asserts (pg. 8):
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Fauteux in view of Pham.
And further asserts:
Fauteux, however, does not have any deficiencies regarding portability or use without a wall outlet…. Thus, Fauteux already provides a solution for providing power to the charging hub "without a cord or wall outlet," and a person of ordinary skill in the art when considering the disclosure of Fauteux would not have had a reason to look elsewhere for portability.
And further asserts:
In addition, the proposed rationale is not aligned with the proposed modification. The Examiner is proposing further modifying Fauteux to "provide DC power to the electrical connectors" and says it would have been obvious "in order to recharge the plurality of satellite devices without a cord or wall outlet, thereby making it portable." Providing DC power is not what makes Pham ( or Fauteux) portable. Instead, the physical arrangement of components is what makes the devices portable. No additional explanation is given to connect the rationale with the proposed modification.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the rejection of claims 1 and similarly claims 13 and 16 where the Examiner stated that it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Fauteux in view of Lee or Pham in order to recharge the plurality of satellite devices without a cord or a wall outlet, thereby making it portable.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1 Appellant asserts (pg. 8):
Finally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Fauteux in view of Pham because Pham teaches away from Fauteux.
And further asserts:
A person of skill in the art would not have modified Fauteux in view of Pham as the batteries 20 of Fauteux are not low voltage devices. Instead, Fauteux provides a battery charger 10 for recharging electric batteries 20, similar to the HVPT rechargeable batteries discussed in Pham. The low voltage output of Pham would result in slow charging and long recharge times for the batteries of Fauteux. This modification is disadvantageous and would have decreased efficiency of the battery charger 10 of Fauteux.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the combined teachings of Fauteux in view of Lee or Pham where The Examiner uses Pham to teach the claim language:
“the battery pack (202, Fig. 2) is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212) and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of devices ([0036] battery 202 is electrically connected to the power tool adapter and charger 200. DC Output 206 voltages are fed as inputs to multiple USB Outputs 210 and DC power outputs 212 having n-pin connector, mini-DIN, lugs, sockets, pins and tabs, for supplying voltages such as 5V-28V).
Applicant provided no evidence that the batteries 20 of Fauteux are not low voltage devices.
Additionally, the test for obviousness teaches what the reference would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1 and similarly claim 13 Appellant asserts (pg. 9, 17-18):
Even if the proposed combination would have provided higher voltage output, a single HVPT rechargeable battery would not have been capable of recharging multiple electric batteries simultaneously. The HVPT rechargeable battery simply would not have sufficient voltage to recharge multiple, similar batteries attached to the cradles. A person of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, would not have modified Fauteux in view of Pham as proposed by the Examiner because combining the charging system 200 of Pham with the charger 10 of Fauteux would render the battery charger 10 of Fauteux incapable of performing its intended purpose.
And further asserts:
For at least these reasons, the rejection of independent claim 1 is improper because Fauteux, Lee, and Pham, alone or in combination, do not teach or render obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1.
In response:
Claim 1, 13 and 16 does not claim charging “multiple electric batteries simultaneously”.
The Examiner also modifies Fauteux with the teachings of Lee where Lee teaches a battery receptacle positioned on the body (313 Fig. 3b). Thus the Examiner does not modify Fauteaux with Pham’s battery.
The Appellant provided no evidence that The HVPT rechargeable battery simply would not have sufficient voltage to recharge multiple, similar batteries attached to the cradles nor would render the battery charger 10 of Fauteux incapable of performing its intended purpose.
And further asserts:
The cited references to do not disclose a battery pack removably coupled to a battery receptacle and operable to provide DC power to electrical contacts in satellite device receptacles to recharge batteries of satellite devices….Tarter does not disclose a battery receptacle positioned on a body or a battery pack removably coupled to the housing. Thus, Tarter does not disclose a battery pack removably coupled to a battery receptacle and operable to provide DC power to electrical contacts.
In response:
The Examiner does not use Fauteax alone but the combined teachings of Fauteax, Lee, and Pham to teach a battery receptacle positioned on the body (313 Fig. 3b of Lee); and a battery pack removably coupled to the housing at the battery receptacle (306,Fig. 3b and [0067] of Lee ) is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212 of Pham) and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of devices ([0036] of Pham).
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1 Appellant asserts (pg. 10):
Lee specifically teaches against using the supplied power for providing DC power to output ports…. Therefore, Lee does not teach a battery receptacle and a battery pack removably attached to the battery receptacle to provide DC power to electrical contacts in a plurality of satellite device receptacles to recharge rechargeable batteries of attached satellite devices.
In response:
The Examiner does not use Lee to teach “provid[ing] DC power to the electrical connectors” as described above.
The Examiner does not use Lee alone but the combined teachings of Tarter, Lee, and Pham to teach a battery receptacle positioned on the body (313 Fig. 3b of Lee); and a battery pack removably coupled to the housing at the battery receptacle (306,Fig. 3b and [0067] of Lee ) is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212 of Pham) and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of devices ([0036] of Pham).
Additionally, In regards to Appellants assertion that “Lee specifically teaches against using the supplied power for providing DC power to output ports…. See Para. [0063}”, [0063] of Lee speaks in regards to the battery pack 306 discharging to power the AC power tool (…to from the normal DC mode to discharging mode allowing the AC output from the detachable DC-to-AC power inverter 303 to power up the AC electric power tool. In this discharging mode, the DC power supply 300 is configured to provide a reversed series path (thereby disable the forward path of charging the DC power pack 306 and driving the DC power tool) for current to leave the DC power pack 306 (if it is connected to the DC power supply 300) and the rechargeable battery unit 305 via the DC-to-DC converter 304 and the detachable DC-to-AC power inverter 303, and thereby energizes the AC power tool).
This does not prevent Lee’s Battery pack 306 from nor teaches away from the “provid[ing] DC power to the electrical connectors” as claimed.
And further asserts (pg. 11):
Pham does not disclose a battery pack operable to provide DC power to electrical contacts in a plurality of receptacles to recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of satellite devices.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the combined teachings of Fauteux in view of Lee or Pham where The Examiner uses Pham to teach the claim language:
“the battery pack (202, Fig. 2) is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212) and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of devices ([0036] battery 202 is electrically connected to the power tool adapter and charger 200. DC Output 206 voltages are fed as inputs to multiple USB Outputs 210 and DC power outputs 212 having n-pin connector, mini-DIN, lugs, sockets, pins and tabs, for supplying voltages such as 5V-28V).
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s)13 Appellant asserts (pg. 12):
Thus, even if combined, none of the cited references teaches a battery pack removably coupled to a battery receptacle and providing DC power to electrical contacts in a satellite device receptacle to recharge batteries of satellite devices.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the rejection of claims 13 where the Examiner combines the teachings of Tarter Lee and Pham to teach the claim language of claim 13 as specified below.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 13 Appellant asserts (pg. 12):
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Tarter in view of Pham.
And further asserts (pg. 12):
Tarter, however, does not have any deficiencies regarding portability or use without a wall outlet…. Thus, Tarter already provides a solution for providing power to the charging hub "without a cord or wall outlet," but the solution does not include a battery pack removably coupled to a battery receptacle, as recited in independent claim 1. A person of skill in the art, when considering the disclosure of Tarter, would not have been prompted to look elsewhere for portability, as Tarter has no deficiency.
And further asserts:
In addition, the proposed rationale is not aligned with the proposed modification. The Examiner is proposing modifying Tarter to "provide DC power to the electrical connectors" and says it would have been obvious "in order to recharge the plurality of satellite devices without a cord or wall outlet, thereby making it portable." See page 20 of Office action. Providing DC power is not what makes Pham (or Tarter) portable. Instead, the physical arrangement of components is what makes the systems portable.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the rejection of claims 13 where the Examiner combines the teachings of Tarter Lee and Pham to teach the claim language of claim 13 in order to recharge the plurality of satellite devices without a cord or a wall outlet, thereby making it portable.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 13 Appellant asserts (pg. 13):
Since the cited art and general knowledge has not provided any reasonable rationale to combine or modify Tarter in view of Pham, Appellant submits that the Examiner's rationale is based on hindsight reconstruction. The combination is made using the Appellant's claim as a roadmap and, thus, the rejection uses knowledge gleaned from the Appellant's disclosure. Therefore, a person of skill in the art, without access to the disclosure of the Appellant, would not have had a reasonable rationale to modify Tarter in view of Pham as proposed.
And further asserts (pg. 13):
For at least these reasons, the rejection of independent claim 1 is improper because Tarter, Lee, and Pham, alone or in combination, do not teach or render obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1. Accordingly, Appellant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the rejection of claims 13 where the Examiner combines the teachings of Tarter Lee and Pham to teach the claim language of claim 13b as specified below.
In response to applicant’s remarks regarding “Examiner's rationale is based on hindsight reconstruction in the rejections of claims 1 and 13 the examiner states motivations to combine the teachings of Tarter, Lee and Pham, wherein the examiner points states that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art in order to recharge the plurality of satellite devices without a cord or a wall outlet, thereby making it portable.
As such the examiner’s primafacia obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 13 takes into account knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure. Therefore the combined teachings of Tarter, Lee and Pham is proper.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 13 Appellant asserts (pg. 14):
Fauteux, Lee, Pham, and Jakl each fail to disclose a second satellite device configured to be charged by DC power and operable to perform a second function that is different from the first function of the first satellite device… Thus, Fauteux does not disclose a second satellite device operable to perform a second function that is different from the first function of the first satellite device.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 13 Appellant asserts (pg. 15):
On page 16 of the Office action, the Examiner acknowledges that, "Fauteux does not specifically disclose the second satellite device operable to perform a second function that is different from the first function." The Examiner then turns to Jakl.
Jakl does not cure the deficiencies of Fauteux.
And further asserts (pg. 15):
Since Jakl discloses charging a variety of devices using magnetic resonance charging, Jakl does not disclose a "second satellite device having a second rechargeable battery configured to be charged by DC power from the battery pack when the second satellite device is coupled to another of the plurality of receptacles, the second satellite device operable to perform a second function that is different from the first function." Instead, Jakl discloses charging using AC power.
In response:
The Examiner respectfully disagree and does not use Jakl alone but the teachings of Fauteaux, Jakl, Pham, and Lee to teach claim language “the second satellite device having a second rechargeable battery configured to be charged when the second satellite device is coupled to the another of the plurality of receptacles ([0016] of Fauteaux), the second satellite device operable to perform a second function that is different from the first function (Fig. 2 of Jakl where charging system 200 showing different satellite devices 210, 216, 218, 220, 222 such as two-way radio, remote or earpiece RSMs, handheld devices, body cameras, gas sensors, mission critical handheld devices, gun holster sensors, handcuff holster sensors, and batteries [0026] . As such the varying satellite devices are operable to perform a different function from each other).
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 13 Appellant asserts (pg. 15-16):
Even if a person of skill in the art had modified Fauteux in view of Jakl (which Appellant does not concede would have been obvious), the modified battery charger 10 of Fauteux would also include magnetic resonance chargers as taught by Jakl. The resulting modified battery charger, therefore, would not include a satellite device configured to be charged by DC power.
In response:
The Examiner respectfully disagree. The Examiner does not use nor is required to modify Fauteaux second satellite device with Jakl’s magnetic resonance charger. As seen below, Jakl is only used to teach the second satellite device operable to perform a second function that is different from the first function (Fig. 2 of Jakl where charging system 200 showing different satellite devices 210, 216, 218, 220, 222 such as two-way radio, remote or earpiece RSMs, handheld devices, body cameras,…) as seen in the rejection of claim 13 below
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 13 Appellant asserts (pg. 16):
Lee and Pham also do not cure the deficiencies of Fauteux and are not used for this part of the rejection. Lee discloses a power supply 300 including a DC output 313 for recharging a battery 306.…Neither Lee nor Pham provides any reason to use DC power and electrical contacts instead of the (AC) wireless charging proposed by Jakl.
In response:
As mentioned by the Applicant above Lee and Pham … not used for this part of the rejection.
And further asserts (pg. 15):
Thus, even if combined, none of the cited references disclose a second satellite device as claimed.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree. As can be seen in the rejection of claim 13 below, the Examiner uses the combined teachings of Fauteaux, Jakl, Pham, and Lee to teach claim language “the second satellite device having a second rechargeable battery configured to be charged when the second satellite device is coupled to the another of the plurality of receptacles ([0016] of Fauteaux), the second satellite device operable to perform a second function that is different from the first function (Fig. 2 of Jakl).
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 13 Appellant asserts (pg. 16):
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Fauteux in view of Jakl. On page 16 of the Office action, the Examiner alleges that it would have been obvious to modify Fauteux to include a second satellite operable to perform a different function "in order to accommodate various radio products and various battery types providing the advantage of commonality for the manufacturer and the user."
And further asserts (pg. 15):
Fauteux already discloses the advantage of accommodating various products and of commonality in powering devices by providing the devices with removable battery packs 20 that can be coupled to any cradle 22 of the battery charger 10 and recharged. Therefore, a person of skill in the art would not have looked to Jakl to modify Fauteux because Fauteux does not have any deficiencies.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree, as stated below, the Examiner combines the teachings of Fauteaux, Jakl, Pham, and Lee to teach claim language of claim 13 for the reasons set forth below.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 13 Appellant asserts (pg. 16):
Additionally, a person of skill in the art would not have looked to Jakl to modify Fauteux because Jakl is directed toward improving magnetic resonance charging for a variety of portable devices used by public safety users. In contrast, Fauteux discloses recharging battery packs. Jakl does not include any disclosure that would advocate for modifying the function of a battery pack. Therefore, a person of skill in the art would not have modified Fauteux in view of Jakl.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and does not use Jakl’s teaching of magnetic resonance charging but the Jakl’s teaching of the claim language the second satellite device operable to perform a second function that is different from the first function (Fig. 2 of Jakl where charging system 200 showing different satellite devices 210, 216, 218, 220, 222 such as two-way radio, remote or earpiece RSMs, handheld devices, body cameras,…)
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 13 Appellant asserts (pg. 16-17):
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Fauteux in view of Pham. On pages 15-16 of the Office action, the Examiner alleges that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging hub of Fauteux in view of Pham "in order to recharge the plurality of satellite devices without a cord or a wall outlet, thereby making it portable." Fauteux, however, does not have any deficiencies regarding portability or use without a wall outlet.
And further asserts (pg. 17):
Thus, Fauteux already provides a solution for providing power to the charging hub "without a cord or wall outlet," and a person of ordinary skill in the art when considering the disclosure of Fauteux would not have had a reason to look elsewhere for portability.
And further asserts (pg. 17):
In addition, the proposed rationale is not aligned with the proposed modification. The Examiner is proposing further modifying Fauteux to "provide DC power to the electrical connectors" and says it would have been obvious "in order to recharge the plurality of satellite devices without a cord or wall outlet, thereby making it portable." Providing DC power is not what makes Pham ( or Fauteux) portable. Instead, the physical arrangement of components is what makes the devices portable. No additional explanation is given to connect the rationale with the proposed modification.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the rejection of claims 1 and similarly claims 13 and 16 where the Examiner stated that it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Fauteux in view of Lee or Pham in order to recharge the plurality of satellite devices without a cord or a wall outlet, thereby making it portable.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 13 Appellant asserts (pg. 17):
Finally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Fauteux in view of Pham because Pham teaches away from Fauteux.
And further asserts (pg. 17):
A person of skill in the art would not have modified Fauteux in view of Pham as the batteries 20 of Fauteux are not low voltage devices. Instead, Fauteux provides a battery charger 10 for recharging electric batteries 20, similar to the HVPT rechargeable batteries discussed in Pham. The low voltage output of Pham would result in slow charging and long recharge times for the batteries of Fauteux. This modification is disadvantageous and would have decreased efficiency of the battery charger 10 of Fauteux.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the combined teachings of Fauteux in view of Lee or Pham where The Examiner uses Pham to teach the claim language:
“the battery pack (202, Fig. 2) is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212) and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of devices ([0036] battery 202 is electrically connected to the power tool adapter and charger 200. DC Output 206 voltages are fed as inputs to multiple USB Outputs 210 and DC power outputs 212 having n-pin connector, mini-DIN, lugs, sockets, pins and tabs, for supplying voltages such as 5V-28V).
Applicant provided no evidence that the batteries 20 of Fauteux are not low voltage devices.
Additionally, the test for obviousness teaches what the reference would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 16 Appellant asserts (pg. 18):
As acknowledged by the Examiner on page 9 of the Office action, "Fauteux does not disclose/teach monitoring a voltage of the satellite device." However, the Examiner alleges it would have been obvious to "monitor a voltage of the satellite device in order to control battery SOH by maintaining the charge voltage below a certain threshold." Appellant respectfully submits that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in rejecting independent claim 16.
And further asserts (pg. 19):
The Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence to support this conclusion. Specifically, that the Examiner has not pointed to any portion of Fauteux, or any other cited reference, that would have provided a reasonable rationale to a person of skill in the art to modify Fauteux.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 16 Appellant asserts (pg. 19-20):
However, the Examiner alleges "it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Fauteux to send a wakeup signal from the satellite device to the charging hub when the voltage falls below a predetermined threshold and in response to the wakeup signal, charge the satellite device with the battery pack connected to the charging hub in order to reduce power consumption of the charging hub by only charging the satellite devices when needed."
Again, the Examiner has not provided a prima facie case of obviousness and has not provided any evidence to support the proposed modification. None of the references even mention the concept of a wakeup signal or conserving power consumption. Therefore, the Examiner has not satisfied the initial burden of factually supporting any prima facie case of obviousness.
In response:
Examiner finds Applicant’s remark persuasive. As such, a New Grounds of Rejection is issued applying the new prior art (Lu CN 109080460) as seen below.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 16 Appellant asserts:
Lee does not disclose monitoring voltage or sending a wakeup signal.
And further asserts:
Pham does not disclose monitoring voltage or sending a wakeup signal.
In response:
The Examiner does not rely on Lee or Pham to teach sending a wakeup signal,
Examiner Notes on claim interpretation
Based on [0037] and Fig. 6 of the specification, Examiner interprets a “satellite device” as a portable “battery operated” electronic device.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-2,4, 6, and 8-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauteux (EP 3327888) in view of Lee (EP 3402036) in view of Pham (US 20140117922).
PNG
media_image1.png
764
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
837
767
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 and 7 of Fauteaux
As to claim 1, Fauteux discloses a charging hub (Fig. 3 and 7 above) comprising:
a housing including a body having a base (Fig. 7 housing including base and receptacle 22), a plurality of satellite device receptacles positioned on the body (Fig. 7 charging cradle 22), the plurality of satellite device receptacles configured to removably couple a plurality of satellite devices to the body ([0007]…removably-affixing the electric battery to the charging cradle. Fig. 3 electric battery pack 64)), each satellite device having a rechargeable battery (Fig. 3 and [0014] electric battery 64 is a rechargeable electric battery), each receptacle having an electrical connector configured to charge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of satellite devices ([0016] Fig. 2 electrical contact 54 which connects to a corresponding battery electrical contact on the battery to charge the electrical battery).
Fauteux does not disclose/teach a battery receptacle positioned on the body; and a battery pack removably coupled to the housing at the battery receptacle.
Lee teaches a battery receptacle positioned on the body (313 Fig. 3b); and a battery pack removably coupled to the housing at the battery receptacle (306,Fig. 3b and [0067]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging hub of Fauteux to include a battery receptacle positioned on the body and a battery pack removably coupled to the housing at the battery receptacle, in order to provide external power to the charging hub without a cord or a wall outlet, thereby making it portable.
Fauteux in view of Lee is not specifically clear that the battery pack is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of satellite devices.
Pham teaches the battery pack (202, Fig. 2) is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212) and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of devices ([0036] battery 202 is electrically connected to the power tool adapter and charger 200. DC Output 206 voltages are fed as inputs to multiple USB Outputs 210 and DC power outputs 212 having n-pin connector, mini-DIN, lugs, sockets, pins and tabs, for supplying voltages such as 5V-28V).
Since Fauteux teaches the electrical contacts are used to charge the battery packs of the plurality of satellite devices ([0016][0056]) and Pham teaches providing DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212), one of ordinary skill in the art can see that the combined teachings of Fauteaux and Pham teaches the DC power provided to the electrical connectors will recharge the batteries of Fauteaux’s devices.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging hub of Fauteux in view of Lee to wherein the battery pack is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of satellite devices, in order to recharge the plurality of satellite devices without a cord or a wall outlet, thereby making it portable.
As to claim 2, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham teaches the charging hub of claim 1, wherein the plurality of satellite device receptacles is configured to physically support the plurality of satellite devices ([0016] of Fauteux The charging cradle, 22, secures the battery to prevent it from moving during charging).
As to claim 4, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham teaches the charging hub of claim 1, wherein the body includes a handle extending from a top of the body opposite the base (Fig. 7 handle 40 of Fauteux).
As to claim 6, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham teaches the charging hub of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of satellite device receptacles is formed as a recess set into an outer wall of the body (Fig. 7 of Fauteux).
As to claim 8, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham teaches the charging hub of claim 1.
Fauteux in view of Lee does not disclose/teach wherein each electrical connector is a USB port.
Pham teaches wherein each electrical connector is a USB port (Fig. 2 USB ports 210).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrical connector of Fauteaux to be a USB port, as taught by Pham in order to charge other devices thereby increasing the versatility of the charger.
As to claim 9, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham teaches the charging hub of claim 1, wherein the battery receptacle is positioned on the base (Fig. 2b and 3b of Lee where DC output port 213/313 for receiving one or more rechargeable battery packs 206. Position of output port 213/313 identified as “base” [0049] [0053][0063] ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify battery receptacle of Fauteux to be positioned on the base in order to provide a surface and space for the power source battery to be inserted on the charging hub.
As to claim 10, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham teaches the charging hub of claim 9, wherein the battery receptacle includes a channel formed in a lower surface of the base (Fig. 2b and 3b of Lee DC port 213/313).
As to claim 11, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham teaches the charging hub of claim 1, wherein the battery pack is a power tool battery pack having electrical contacts ([0062] of Lee…one or more DC power packs 306 are suitable for use in battery driven or cordless DC power tools. As such the DC power packs 206 has electrical contacts).
Fauteux in view of Lee does not disclose/teach the battery pack having a latch operable to releasably secure the power tool battery pack to the housing.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of Fauteux in view of Lee to have a latch operable to releasably secure the power tool battery pack to the housing in order to prevent the battery pack from disengaging from the charger further prevent damage from the battery pack.
As to claim 12, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham teaches the charging hub of claim 1, wherein the plurality of satellite device receptacles includes four satellite device receptacles (Fig. 3 and 7 of Fauteux).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauteux (EP 3327888) in view of Lee (EP 3402036) in view of Pham (US 20140117922) in view of Zhu (US 20190103805).
As to claim 3, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham teaches the charging hub of claim 2.
Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham does not disclose/teach wherein each of the plurality of satellite device receptacles includes a rail configured to slidingly engage each of the plurality of satellite devices.
Zhu teaches wherein each of the plurality of satellite device receptacles includes a rail configured to slidingly engage each of the plurality of satellite devices. (Fig. 1 [0075] The battery pack interfaces 18 of the adaptor 10 further includes a coupling structure 185, which enables the battery pack to be removably coupled to the adaptor. Specifically, the coupling structure 185 may include two guiding rails 185a and 185b, which guide the battery pack 30 to be slidably and removably coupled to the adaptor 10.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the satellite device receptacles of Fauteux to wherein each of the plurality of satellite device receptacles includes a rail configured to slidingly engage each of the plurality of satellite devices, as taught by Zhu in order to properly align the electrical contacts of the satellite device with the electrical contacts of the charging hub, further preventing short circuits or damage to any devices.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauteux (EP 3327888) in view of Lee EP 3402036 in view of Pham (US 20140117922) in view of Goei (US 20150022001).
As to claim 7, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham teaches the charging hub of claim 6, wherein the electrical connector is positioned on a lower surface of the recess (Fig. 7 of Fauteux).
Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham does not disclose/teach wherein each receptacle includes a pair of rails on sidewalls of the recess.
Goei teaches wherein each receptacle includes a pair of rails on sidewalls of the recess ([0029] The battery packs 102 slide into the rack 502 on rails 504 locates on each side 506 of the rack 502 ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the satellite device receptacles of Fauteux to wherein each receptacle includes a pair of rails on sidewalls of the recess, in order to properly align the electrical contacts of the satellite device with the electrical contacts of the charging hub, further preventing short circuits or damage to any devices.
Claims 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauteux (EP 3327888) in view of Lee EP 3402036 in view of Pham (US 20140117922) in view of Jakl (US 20200350789).
As to claim 13, Fauteux discloses a charging hub (Fig. 3 and 7 above) and satellite device kit (battery devices 20, Fig. 3) comprising:
a charging hub including a plurality of receptacles (Fig. 7 charging cradle 22), the charging hub configured to receive power from a power supply ([0032] electric battery charger 10 draws its power from a power source which can be AC or DC power).
Fauteaux further discloses a first satellite device removably coupled to one of the plurality of receptacles (The electric battery 20 [0007]…removably-affixing the electric battery to the charging cradle), the first satellite device having a first rechargeable battery configured to be charged when the first satellite device is coupled to the one of the plurality of receptacles ([0016] The charging cradle 22 contains a cradle electrical contact (see Fig. 2 at 54) which connects to a corresponding battery electrical contact on the battery to charge the electrical battery), the first satellite device operable to perform a first function ([0014]-[0015] smart electric battery).
Fauteaux further discloses a second satellite device removably coupled to another of the plurality of receptacles (The electric battery 20 [0007]), the second satellite device having a second rechargeable battery configured to be charged when the second satellite device is coupled to the another of the plurality of receptacles ([0016]).
Fauteux does not specifically disclose the charging hub including a battery receptacle configured to removably receive a battery pack, the charging hub configured to receive power from the battery pack.
Lee teaches the charging hub including a battery receptacle configured to removably receive a battery pack (313 Fig. 3b), the charging hub configured to receive power from the battery pack (Fig. 3a).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging hub of Fauteux to include a battery receptacle configured to removably receive a battery pack, the charging hub configured to receive power from the battery pack, in order to provide external power to the charging hub without a cord or a wall outlet, thereby making it portable.
Fauteux further does not disclose the first satellite device configured to be charged by DC power from the battery pack when the first satellite device is coupled to the one of the plurality of receptacles and the second satellite device configured to be charged by DC power from the battery pack when the second satellite device is coupled to the another of the plurality of receptacles.
Pham teaches first device configured to be charged by DC power from the battery pack when the first device is coupled to the one of the plurality of receptacles and the second device configured to be charged by DC power from the battery pack when the second device is coupled to the another of the plurality of receptacles ([0036] battery 202 is electrically connected to the power tool adapter and charger 200. DC Output 206 voltages are fed as inputs to multiple USB Outputs 210 and DC power outputs 212 having n-pin connector, mini-DIN, lugs, sockets, pins and tabs, for supplying voltages such as 5V-28V).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging hub of Fauteux to include the first satellite device configured to be charged by DC power from the battery pack when the first satellite device is coupled to the one of the plurality of receptacles and the second satellite device configured to be charged by DC power from the battery pack when the second satellite device is coupled to the another of the plurality of receptacles in order to recharge the plurality of satellite devices without a cord or a wall outlet, thereby making it portable.
Fauteux does not specifically disclose the second satellite device operable to perform a second function that is different from the first function.
Jakl teaches the second satellite device operable to perform a second function that is different from the first function (Fig. 2 where charging system 200 showing different satellite devices 210, 216, 218, 220, 222 such as two-way radio, remote or earpiece RSMs, handheld devices, body cameras, gas sensors, mission critical handheld devices, gun holster sensors, handcuff holster sensors, and batteries [0026] . As such the varying satellite devices are operable to perform a different function from each other)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the satellite devices of Fauteux wherein the second satellite device operable to perform a second function that is different from the first function in order to accommodate various radio products and various battery types providing the advantage of commonality for the manufacturer and the user.
As to claim 14, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham in view of Jakl teaches the kit of claim 13, wherein the first satellite device is one selected from a group consisting of a light, a speaker, a fan, a stud finder, a laser level, a power bank, a two-way radio, a radio (two - radios [0026] of Jakl), a combination light and speaker, and a flashlight, wherein the second satellite device is another selected from the group consisting of a light, a speaker, a fan, a stud finder, a laser level, a power bank, a two-way radio, a radio, a combination light and speaker, and a flashlight (remote speaker microphones (RSM’s) [0026] of Jakl).
Claims 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarter (US 20110012518) in view of Lee EP 3402036.
PNG
media_image3.png
831
740
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
768
755
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Tarter discloses a charging hub (lantern 20, Fig. 1 [0018][0042]) comprising:
a housing including a body having a base (Fig. 2), a plurality of satellite device receptacles positioned on the body (Docking bay 34 [0023]), the plurality of satellite device receptacles configured to removably couple a plurality of satellite devices to the body ([0005] … area lights are removably connectable to the docking station), each satellite device having a rechargeable battery (the power source of the area light 24 which is a battery [0030]), each receptacle having an electrical connector configured to charge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of satellite devices ([0042] If an area light 24 is no longer needed in a particular area, it can be returned to the docking station 22 where it can be powered by the docking station power source and/or the power source of the docking station can recharge the power source of the area light 24. When an area light 24 is returned to the docking station 22, docking station contacts 42, 44, 46 (i.e. electrical contact 36) are electrically connected to corresponding area light contacts 60, 64, 66 and the power source of the docking station 22 charges the power source of the area light 24).
Tarter does not disclose/teach a battery receptacle positioned on the body; and a battery pack removably coupled to the housing at the battery receptacle.
Lee teaches a battery receptacle positioned on the body (313 Fig. 3b); and a battery pack removably coupled to the housing at the battery receptacle (306,Fig. 3b and [0067]),
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging hub of Tarter to include a battery receptacle positioned on the body; and a battery pack removably coupled to the housing at the battery receptacle, in order to easily replace Tarter’s internal battery with a portable battery while providing power to the charging hub without a cord or a wall outlet.
Tarter in view of Lee is not specifically clear that the battery pack operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of satellite devices.
Pham teaches the battery pack (202, Fig. 2) is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212) and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of devices ([0036] battery 202 is electrically connected to the power tool adapter and charger 200. DC Output 206 voltages are fed as inputs to multiple USB Outputs 210 and DC power outputs 212 having n-pin connector, mini-DIN, lugs, sockets, pins and tabs, for supplying voltages such as 5V-28V).
Since Tarter teaches the electrical contacts are used to charge the battery packs of the plurality of satellite devices ([0042]) and Pham teaches providing DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212), one of ordinary skill in the art can see that the combined teachings of Tarter and Pham teaches the DC power provided to the electrical connectors will recharge the batteries of Tarter’s devices.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging hub of Tarter in view of Lee to wherein the battery pack is operable to provide DC power to the electrical connectors and recharge the rechargeable batteries of the plurality of satellite devices, in order to recharge the plurality of satellite devices without a cord or a wall outlet, thereby making it portable.
As to claim 5, Tarter and Lee in view of Pham teaches the charging hub of claim 1.
Although Tarter teaches the plurality of satellite device encircles a center axis a central axis extending through the body, Tarter is not clear as to whether the plurality of satellite device receptacles are evenly spaced around the central axis extending through the body.
However it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to evenly space the plurality of satellite device receptacles around the central axis extending through the body in order to balance the weights of the battery packs around the handle.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauteux (EP 3327888) in view of Lee (EP 3402036) in view of Pham (US 20140117922) in view of Lu (CN 109080460).
As to Claim 16, Fauteux discloses a method of charging a satellite device with a charging hub (Fig. 3 and 7 above), the satellite device including a rechargeable battery (battery devices 20, Fig. 3), the charging hub including a housing, the method comprising:
coupling the satellite device to the charging hub ([0016] The charging cradle 22 contains a cradle electrical contact (see Fig. 2 at 54) which connects to a corresponding battery electrical contact on the battery to charge the electrical battery);
Fauteux does not disclose/teach the housing having a receptacle, and a battery pack removably coupled to the housing.
Lee teaches the housing having a receptacle (313 Fig. 3b), and a battery pack removably coupled to the housing (306,Fig. 3b and [0067]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the housing of Fauteux to have a receptacle, and a battery pack removably coupled to the housing, in order to provide external power to the charging hub without a cord or a wall outlet, thereby making it portable.
Fauteux in view of Lee further does not disclose/teach the method comprising: coupling the satellite device to the receptacle of the charging hub (Examiner interprets as “electrically coupling” the satellite device to the receptacle of the charging hub);
Pham teaches coupling the satellite device to the receptacle of the charging hub, and charging a rechargeable battery of the satellite device with DC power from the battery pack connected to the charging hub ([0036] and Fig. 2 battery 202 is electrically connected to the power tool adapter and charger 200. DC Output 206 voltages are fed as inputs to multiple USB Outputs 210 and DC power outputs 212 having n-pin connector, mini-DIN, lugs, sockets, pins and tabs, for supplying voltages such as 5V-28V).
Since Fauteux teaches the electrical contacts are used to charge the battery packs of the plurality of satellite devices ([0016][0056]) and Pham teaches providing DC power to the electrical connectors (outputs 210 and 212), one of ordinary skill in the art can see that the combined teachings of Fauteaux and Pham teaches the DC power provided to the electrical connectors will recharge Fauteux’s batteries of the plurality of devices.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify method of Fauteux in view of Lee to couple the satellite device to the receptacle of the charging hub, and charge a rechargeable battery of the satellite device with DC power from the battery pack connected to the charging hub in order to recharge the plurality of satellite devices without a cord or a wall outlet, thereby making it portable.
Although Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham teaches charging a rechargeable battery of the satellite device with DC power from the battery pack connected to the charging hub ([0036] and Fig. 2 of Pham as described above).
Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham further does not disclose/teach the method comprising: monitoring a voltage of the satellite device, sending a wakeup signal from the satellite device to the charging hub when the voltage falls below a predetermined threshold; and in response to the wakeup signal, charging a rechargeable battery of the satellite device with DC power from the battery pack connected to the charging hub.
Lu teaches monitoring a voltage of a device, sending a wakeup signal from the device to the a charging device when the voltage falls below a predetermined threshold and in response to the wakeup signal charging a rechargeable battery of the device with DC power from the DC power source connected to the charging device (When the low-voltage battery management system detects that the voltage of the low-voltage battery is less than the preset charging start voltage, the vehicle control unit VCU is woken up so that the VCU wakes up the DC power supply to the DC power supply DC-DC device so that DC-DC device starts charging the low-voltage battery. See also [0076] Step 307 of Fig. 3 : The VCU completes high voltage power-up and starts to output a wake-up voltage signal to the DC-DC device through a hard line to wake up the DC-DC device. The DC-DC device starts to charge the 12V battery through the hard line).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Fauteux, Lee and Pham to have the satellite device send the wakeup signal to the charging device in view of Lu’s teaching of monitoring a voltage of the satellite device, sending a wakeup signal from the satellite device to the charging hub when the voltage falls below a predetermined threshold and in response to the wakeup signal charging a rechargeable battery of the satellite device with DC power from the battery pack connected to the charging hub.
The artisan would have been motivated to modify Fateaux, Lee and Pham with the teachings from Lu in order to avoid the battery over-discharge as taught by Lu (Abstract and [0008]), and to extend the satellite devices charging time by preserving power from the battery pack connected to the charging hub. It is noted that Lu is analogous art because Lu seeks to solve the problem of a device being charged sending a wakeup signal to its charger and in response, the charger charges the device.
As to Claim 17, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham in view of Lu teaches the method of claim 16, wherein coupling the satellite device to the receptacle of the charging hub ([0036] and Fig. 2 of Pham) includes physically supporting the satellite device on the housing of the charging hub (Fig. 2 of Fauteux).
As to Claim 19, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham in view of Lu teaches the method of claim 16, wherein coupling the satellite device to the receptacle of the charging hub includes plugging a USB port into the satellite device (Fig. 2 of Pham USB ports 210).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compartment of Fauteaux to include wherein coupling the satellite device to the receptacle of the charging hub includes plugging a USB port into the satellite device, in order to charge other devices thereby increasing the versatility of the charger.
As to Claim 20, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham in view of Lu teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the housing of the charging hub has a plurality of receptacles (Fig. 7 charging cradles 22), and further comprising coupling a plurality of satellite devices to the plurality of receptacles of the charging hub to simultaneously support the plurality of satellite devices on the charging hub (Fig. 3 showing a plurality of satellite devices coupled to the plurality of receptacles of the charging hub to simultaneously support the plurality of satellite devices on the charging hub).
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauteux (EP 3327888) in view of Lee (EP 3402036) in view of Pham (US 20140117922) in view of Lu (CN 109080460) in view of Zhu (US 20190103805).
As to Claim 18, Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham in view of Lu teaches the method of claim 17.
Fauteux in view of Lee in view of Pham in view of Lu does not disclose/teach wherein coupling the satellite device to the receptacle of the charging hub includes sliding the satellite device along a rail positioned in the receptacle.
Zhu teaches wherein coupling the satellite device to the receptacle of the charging hub includes sliding the satellite device along a rail positioned in the receptacle. (Fig. 1, 4 [0075] The battery pack interfaces 18 of the adaptor 10 further includes a coupling structure 185, which enables the battery pack to be removably coupled to the adaptor. Specifically, the coupling structure 185 may include two guiding rails 185a and 185b, which guide the battery pack 30 to be slidably and removably coupled to the adaptor 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the satellite device receptacles of Fauteux to wherein coupling the satellite device to the receptacle of the charging hub includes sliding the satellite device along a rail positioned in the receptacle, as taught by Zhu in order to properly align the electrical contacts of the satellite device with the electrical contacts of the charging hub, further preventing short circuits or damage to any devices.
Conclusion
Wang (US 20230011671) is cited for [0112] In the case where the main storage battery is normal, when the first power supply state signal indicates that the output voltage of the main storage battery is lower than the preset voltage threshold, and the power supply system satisfies the charging condition, that is, in the case where the DCDC is normal and there is no high voltage security problem, and there is no security failure, the power domain controller sends a charging request to the DCDC through data wires so as to wake up the DCDC, and then the high voltage power supply box charges the main storage battery through DCDC. However, Wang is filed after the effective filing date.
Chen (US 20230382328) is cited for a power replenishment wake-up strategy provided in the disclosure can make it possible to couple all of a plurality of trigger conditions, such as a state of charge, a voltage, and a sleep time, for sending a power replenishment wake-up signal, thereby ensuring that a low-voltage battery is kept at a good charge level in several ways. However Chen is filed after the effective filing date.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYNESE V MCDANIEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6579. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9am to 530pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached on 5712722312. 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.
/TYNESE V MCDANIEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights