CTFR 17/480,651 CTFR 96924 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 8, “The Office, however, contends that placing an entirely separate hub and battery receptacle in the central portion of Hennesy between the poor cooling flow regions 840A, 840B would have been obvious. This contention runs counter to the teaching in Hennesy that placing heat generating components of the PCBs in poor cooling flow regions degrades performance of the respective PCB. See [[0052] of Hennesy.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Hennesy central portion (by simple definition of hub (hub is a central point of something, often a center of activity or a point of connection for other things) is considered as a hub. It is worth noting that the poor cooling flow region 840A and 840B is not the central region, but it is the part of the PCB 800A and 800B. The Hennesy's hub does not have a PCB (having one or more battery receptacle) with the fan and venting just like PCB 800A with fan 820A and PCB 800B with fan 820B. By introducing a PCB with the battery receptacle at the central portion of Hennesy as taught by Frank would have the same cooling fan and venting at the center to keep the temperature of the battery at optimal level just like the other battery receptacle parts. The proposed modification does not require ignoring the thermal management principles of Hennessy, because a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the charger components may be arranged in various housing regions while still maintaining acceptable thermal performance through routine engineering optimization. The applicant further argues on page 9, “the Office does not identify any specific teaching, suggestion, or recognized problem in Hennesy that would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the entirely separate and different battery charger of Nakasho into the central portion of Hennesy.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The rationale for combination under 103 does not require that the primary reference be unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or incapable of operation. Rather, it is sufficient that the prior art would have suggested the claimed combination to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The modification merely represents the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same field. Applicant arguments are not persuasive. Hennessy does not teach away from the proposed modification because it does not discourage incorporation of additional charging components within the housing. Further, the rejection is not based on the conclusory reasoning. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the charger arrangement of Nakasho into Hennessy to provide charging flexibility for multiple battery configurations, improve packing efficiency, centralized charging functionality, and reduced wiring complexity within a unified charging platform. Th proposed modification merely combines known charging elements according to their established function to achieve predicted results. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 50-51, 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennesy (US 2019/0199101) and Nakasho (US 2010/0109605) . Regarding claim 1, Hennesy discloses a charging station (fig. 1 (A, B)) comprising: a housing (the battery pack charger system 1000 includes a housing 160 seated in a frame 170, paragraph [0016]) with wings extending along the central part of the housing (see annotated fig. I below); PNG media_image1.png 486 1020 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated fig. 1 a first charging port (100, see annotated figure below) disposed on the wing of the housing (charging ports 100 positioned at an external portion of the housing 160, paragraph [0016]), the first charging port including a first battery receptacle defined in the wing, the first battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a first type of battery pack (the charging port 100 may allow different removable battery packs to be securely coupled in the charging port 100, with an electrical connection between the removable battery pack and the charging port 100/charger system 1000 providing for charging of the removable battery pack coupled in the charging port 100, paragraph [0022]); and a second charging port (100, see annotated figure below) disposed on the wing of the housing (charging ports 100 positioned at an external portion of the housing 160, paragraph [0016]), the second charging port including a second battery receptacle defined in the wing (the battery receptacle on the wing, see annotated fig above), the second battery receptacle configured to receive and charge the first type battery pack (the battery pack 200 is charging with the second battery receptacle see fig. 1B,). Hennesy is silent over a housing defining a hub connected with the wings, the hub extended in a direction transverse to the wing and a third battery receptacle defined in the hub, the third battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a second type of battery pack that is different from the first type of battery pack. Nakasho discloses a housing (Case 1, fig. 1, 2) defining a hub with a third battery receptacle defined in the hub (first charging terminal or second charging terminals, fig. 1), the third battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a second type of battery pack that is different from the first type of battery pack (the battery hub figs. 1 and 2 has the characteristic that different types of rectangular battery packs loaded in the holding cavity can be easily attached and detached, paragraph [0025]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Hennesy to include the Hub at the central part of the housing with battery receptacle as taught by Nakasho, in order to access the different receptacles at different location to charge the various kind of battery packs in a convenient way. Regarding claim 3, Hennsey in view of Nakasho discloses the charging station of claim 1, Hennsey does not disclose the second battery receptacle and the third battery receptacle are orientated at a right angle relative to the other such that the second battery receptacle receives the first type of battery pack in a direction that is orientated at a right angle relative to a direction that the third battery receptacle receives the second type of battery pack. Nakasho discloses the second battery receptacle and the third battery receptacle are orientated at a right angle relative to the other such that the second battery receptacle receives the first type of battery pack in a direction that is orientated at a right angle relative to a direction that the third battery receptacle receives the second type of battery pack ( the holding cavity has an inside shape that allows each set of electrode terminals, to contact charging terminals when the first rectangular battery pack and the second rectangular battery pack are loaded with 90.degree. of rotation between respective terminal surfaces, claim 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Hennesy to include the Hub at the central part of the housing with battery receptacle as taught by Nakasho, in order to access the different receptacles at different location to charge the various kind of battery packs in a convenient way. Regrading claim 4, Hennesy in view of Nakasho discloses the charging station of claim 1. Hennesy further a third port disposed on the wing (see the annotated fig. I number of receptacle on a wing). Regrading claim 6, Hennesy discloses the charging station of claim 1 in view of Nakasho, Hennesy discloses the housing of charging station with the wings (see annotated fig. I) connected to the central part of the housing considered to be a hub (hub is a central point of something, often a center of activity or a point of connection for other things). Regarding claim 7, Hennesy in view of Nakasho discloses the charging station of the claim 6. Nakasho further discloses a third port is disposed on the Hub (first or second battery terminals fig. 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Hennesy to include the Hub at the central part of the housing with a port as taught by Nakasho, in order to access the different receptacles at different location to charge the various kind of battery packs in a convenient way. Regarding claim 50, Hennesy in view of Nakasho discloses the charging station of the claim 1. Hennesy further discloses the wing is rigidly coupled to the central part of the housing (see the annotated fig I above where the wings are rigidly attached to the center of the housing considered as a hub). Regarding claim 51, Hennesy in view of Nakasho discloses the charging station of the claim 6. Hennesy further discloses the wing is rigidly coupled to the central part of the housing (see the annotated fig I above where the wings are rigidly attached to the center of the housing considered as a hub). Regarding claim 56, Hennesy in view of Nakasho discloses the charging station of the claim 1. Hennesy does not explicitly disclose that the hub has the battery receptacles. Nakaso discloses the hub, wherein the at least one battery receptacle is configured to slidably receive the battery pack in the direction that extends along the length of the first wing (fig. 2; where the charger has the battery receptacles on the face; the hub slidably received the batteries in two directions where one will along the length of the wing). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Hennesy to include the Hub at the central part of the housing with a port as taught by Nakasho, in order to access the different receptacles at different location to charge the various kind of battery packs in a convenient way . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15, 16, 19, 20, 53-55, 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huggins et al. (US 2018/0158318), herein after Huggins and Hennesy (US 2019/0199101) . Regarding claim 15, Huggins discloses a charging station for use with a gang box, the charging station (fig. 8A) comprising: a housing (508, fig. 8A) defining an electronics hub, a first wing defining a length and a width and extending in a direction along the length of the first wing away from the electronics hub, and a second wing defining a length and a width and extending in an opposite direction along [[its]] the length of the second wing away from the electronics hub on an opposite side from the first wing (see the annotated fig. I); and a plurality of ports disposed on the housing (508 has plurality of ports 530, 562, fig. 8A), each of the plurality of ports including a battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a battery pack (the battery pack 505 is coupled to the charger 500 via the battery receiving port 530, paragraph [0059]), at least one battery receptacle defined in the electronics hub and configured to receive a battery pack in a direction that extends along the length of the first wing (the battery receiving portion 530 may be configured to receive the battery pack 505 configured as a ‘slide on’ battery pack that is inserted along a horizontal insertion axis, paragraph [0041] in this axis the battery slides along the length of the wing), Although, Huggins discloses the charger (500, fig. 8) to power plurality of the device accommodate in different way, however, Huggins does not disclose and at least another battery receptacle defined in the housing and configured to receive another battery pack in a direction that extends along the width direction of the first wing. Hennesy discloses the battery pack charger to charge the plurality of the battery simultaneously (fig. 1), Hennsey further discloses at least another battery receptacle defined in the housing and configured to receive another battery pack in a direction that extends along the width direction of the first wing (the battery is slidably receives in the charging port which is along the width of the housing (along y-axis), fig. 9C, paragraph [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Huggins’s charger wings to have the charging ports as taught by Hennessy, in order to consolidate power delivery into a single hub. This eliminates cable clutter, accommodates the battery in the proper space and ensures fast, simultaneous charging for diverse devices. Regarding claim 16, Huggins further discloses wherein each of the ports includes a dedicated indicator light that indicates to a user a condition of the battery pack (The battery pack 505 further includes a fuel gauge 1395 that indicates a state of charge of the battery pack., paragraph [0061]). Regarding claim 19, Huggins further discloses wherein the plurality of ports includes four ports (plurality of ports two 562, 530, two 520, fig. 8A). Regarding claim 20, Huggins in view of Hennesy discloses the charging station of claim 15. Huggins further discloses the hup has the battery receptacle to charge the battery pack (paragraph [0059]). However, Huggins is silent about the charger have the plurality of the different types of battery receptacles to charge the different types of the battery. Hennesy discloses one of the plurality of ports includes a first receptacle configured to receive and charge a first type of battery pack, and wherein another of the plurality of ports includes a second receptacle that is different from the first receptacle to receive and charge a second type of battery pack that is different from the first type of battery pack (the charging port 100 may allow different removable battery packs, such as, for example, the battery packs 200, 300 (two different type of battery pack) to be securely coupled in the charging port 100, with an electrical connection between the removable battery pack and the charging port 100/charger system 1000 providing for charging of the removable battery pack coupled in the charging port 100, paragraph [0022]; In a charger system 1000, in accordance with implementations described herein, multiple different removable battery pack configurations may be received and secured in the charging ports 100 for charging, paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Huggins’s charger wings to have the charging ports as taught by Hennessy, in order to consolidate power delivery into a single hub. This eliminates cable clutter, accommodates the battery in the proper space and ensures fast, simultaneous charging for diverse devices. Regarding claim 53, Huggins in view of Hennesy discloses the charging station of claim 15. Huggins further discloses wherein the first wing and the second wing are both rigidly coupled to the hub(see the annotated fig. II). PNG media_image2.png 724 1042 media_image2.png Greyscale Annotated fig. II Regarding claim 55, Huggins in view of Hennesy discloses the charging station of claim 15. Huggins further discloses wherein the direction the at least one battery receptacle is configured to receive the battery pack is a direction parallel to the length of the first wing (the battery receiving portion 530 may be configured to receive the battery pack 505 configured as a ‘slide on’ battery pack that is inserted along a horizontal insertion axis, paragraph [0041] in this axis the battery slides along the length of the wing), wherein the direction the at least another battery receptacle is configured to receive the other battery pack is a direction parallel to the width direction of the first wing. Although, Huggins discloses the charger (500, fig. 8) to power plurality of the device accommodate in different way, however, Huggins does not disclose wherein the direction the at least another battery receptacle is configured to receive the other battery pack is a direction parallel to the width direction of the first wing. Hennesy discloses the battery pack charger to charge the plurality of the battery simultaneously (fig. 1), Hennsey further discloses wherein the direction the at least another battery receptacle is configured to receive the other battery pack is a direction parallel to the width direction of the first wing (the battery is slidably receives in the charging port which is along the width of the housing (along y-axis), fig. 9C, paragraph [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Huggins’s charger wings to have the charging ports as taught by Hennessy, in order to consolidate power delivery into a single hub. This eliminates cable clutter, accommodates the battery in the proper space and ensures fast, simultaneous charging for diverse devices. Regarding claim 57, Huggins in view of Hennesy discloses the charging station of claim 15. Huggins further discloses wherein the at least one battery receptacle is configured to slidably receive the battery pack in the direction that extends along the length of the first wing (the battery receiving portion 530 may be configured to receive the battery pack 505 configured as a ‘slide on’ battery pack that is inserted along a horizontal insertion axis, paragraph [0041] in this axis the battery slides along the length of the wing), and the at least another battery receptacle is configured to slidably receive the other battery pack in the direction that extends along the width of the first wing. Hennesy discloses the battery pack charger to charge the plurality of the battery simultaneously (fig. 1), Hennsey further discloses at least another battery receptacle defined in the housing and configured to receive another battery pack in a direction that extends along the width direction of the first wing (the battery is slidably receives in the charging port which is along the width of the housing (along y-axis), fig. 9C, paragraph [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Huggins’s charger wings to have the charging ports as taught by Hennessy, in order to consolidate power delivery into a single hub. This eliminates cable clutter, accommodates the battery in the proper space and ensures fast, simultaneous charging for diverse devices . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huggins (US 2018/0158318), and Hennesy (US 2019/0199101) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Guyatt (US 11,437,796) . Regarding claim 18, Huggins in view of Hennesy discloses the charging system of claim 15. Hennesy disclose the housing (1000, fig. 1A) having the front and rear part of housing mounted on a support 710 with the support of stud (750, fig. 7). But they do not explicitly disclose that the rear side include the rail assembly to attach it with other structure. Guyatt discloses the housing includes a front housing and a rear housing, the rear housing defining a rail with a cleat to facilitate attaching the housing to the gang box or other structure (the rail assembly 610 for placing or locating a gang box 632 on a wall structure 60, Col. 15, lines 18-20. Fig. 41). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teaching of Guyatt rail assembly, the housing of charging station of Huggins in view of Hennesy can be mounted on any structure like wall. The rail assembly provides the benefit of convent installation of the charging station housing on any structure (Col. 14, lines 39-42) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennesy (US 2019/0199101) and Nakasho (US 2010/0109605) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frank (EP 3517253) . Regarding claim 52, Hennesy in view of Nakasho discloses the charging station of claim 1. However, they are silent about the third battery receptacle is positioned such that a second battery pack disposed in the third battery receptacle obstructs attachment of a first battery pack to at least one of the first battery receptacle and the second battery receptacle. Frank discloses the third battery receptacle (14, fig. 1a) is positioned such that a second battery pack (the battery receptacle 14 is capable to accommodate the battery pack 20, fig. 1a) disposed in the third battery receptacle (the battery receptacle 14 is wider than the other battery receptacle, paragraph [0039]) obstructs attachment of a first battery pack to at least one of the first battery receptacle and the second battery receptacle (the accommodation of further battery packs in the battery receptacles 12 and 16 could be blocked by a coupled battery pack 20 in the battery receptacle 14 by the latter protruding laterally into the accommodation areas of the battery receptacles 12 and 16 or the installation space occupied by the battery packs 22, 24 (in the case of a mechanical coupling, cf. Figure 1b ), paragraph [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Hennesy in view of Nakasho to include the battery receptacles such that only a limited number of batteries can be charged at a time as taught by Frank, in order to ensure optimal, balanced charging, prevents overcharging/damage, offers greater safety, and extends battery life . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huggins (US 2018/0158318), and Hennesy (US 2019/0199101) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Frank (EP 3517253) . Regarding claim 54, Huggins in view of Hennesy discloses the charging station of claim 15. However, they are silent about wherein at least one port of the plurality of ports is configured to be obstructed if a battery pack is disposed in another port of the plurality of ports. Frank discloses wherein at least one port (port 14, fig. 1a) of the plurality of ports (12, 16, fig. 1a) is configured to be obstructed if a battery pack is disposed in another port of the plurality of ports (paragraph [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Huggins in view of Hennesy to include the battery receptacles such that only a limited number of batteries can be charged at a time as taught by Frank, in order to ensure optimal, balanced charging, prevents overcharging/damage, offers greater safety, and extends battery life. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIA KOUSAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5:30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. SADIA . KOUSAR Examiner Art Unit 2859 /JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 2 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 3 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 4 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 5 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 6 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 7 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 8 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 9 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 10 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 11 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 12 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 13 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 14 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 15 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/480,651 Page 16 Art Unit: 2859
Prosecution Insights