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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 10/30/25 is acknowledged.
Applicant has cancelled claims 21-25 as being drawn to non-elected inventions. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
Drawings filed on 11/9/22 are acceptable and made of record.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it resembles a claim (especially claim 1). Applicant is reminded legal phraseology including “comprising” is not permitted in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)/first paragraph
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for wirelessly charging an electronic device placed on the platform when none of the buttons is depressed (i.e. figure 1), does not reasonably provide enablement for wirelessly charging an electronic device placed on the platform when any of the buttons is depressed (i.e. figure 2; para 46). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
As far as can be understood, the wireless charging assembly 26 occupied the moveable platform 22 wherein a button cover 110 together with a bezel 130 formed the top surface (i.e. user interface 114) of the wireless charger 10. The top surface 114 has a button cover 110 with a centered wireless charging area 126 (i.e. represented by a ”lightning” symbol) and surrounded by the four different buttons (i.e. represented by arrows). The platform moved in the direction of the pressed button. An electronic device 14 is placed on this top surface 114 to wirelessly charge its battery (i.e. figure 3).
ENABLING: The charging of the electronic device would be commencing when placed upon the surface ONLY if none of the buttons is activated or pressed due to the top surface 114, together with the button cover 110, is flush with the bezel 130. Figure 2 shows the electronic device is larger than bezel. The inductive area of the electronic device comes into contact with the charging area 126 only when these surfaces are flushed with each other.
NOT ENABLING: The charging of the electronic device would not commence when any of the button is pressed, the platform would tilt toward the pressed button as illustrated in figure 2. Because of the tilt of the platform (i.e. figure 2), the charging area 126 is not flush with the bezel, thereby the electronic device would not “sit” in contact with the charging area 126. Wireless transfer of power cannot be accomplished because of the angled gap produced by the tilt. Additionally, the electronic device may not rest steadily on the wireless charger at an angle because the charger is incorporated into a piece of furniture which constantly being used (i.e. furniture vibration from usage would cause the electronic device to slip off the charger when placed at an angle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)/second paragraph
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 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 1, the limitation “with respect to a center axis” is indefinite because it is unclear as to what object the axis is associated.
Re claims 2-9, they are indefinite for depending directly or indirectly on indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baarman et al. (US 2015/0069967).
Re claim 1, the reference discloses an assembly 80 comprising: a platform 88 movable with respect to a center axis (pointed by hinge 90; figure 6A) between a first position (figure 6A) and a second position (figure 6B); a wireless charging assembly 110 coupled to the platform 88; and a switch activated in response to the platform moving to the second position (figure 6B) [para 90 discloses a sensor detecting the lever 82 activated in the second position and activating charging]. See also para 88-90; figs 6A-6B.
Re claim 3, the reference further discloses the first position is an at-rest position (figure 6A), and the second position is a deflected or rotated position (figure 6B).
Re claim 4, the reference further discloses the platform 88 is aligned with the center axis (shown by hinge 90) when in the first position (figure 6A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. (US 2015/0069967).
The reference is silent on having the platform including a first surface and a recess formed in the first surface that partially receives the wireless charging assembly. Official notice is taken of the fact that inductive coils are assembled on top of the charging surface, placed in the charging surface via recess with exposed coils or completely submerged inside the charging surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have placed the coils in the recess of the surface, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known materiale on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims AND to overcome both 112 rejections above.
The art made of record fails to disclose the assembly having, at least, the elements of claims 6, 9 or 10.
Claims 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The art made of record fails to disclose or suggest an assembly having, at least, a platform having a wireless charger including a plurality of actuation portions, wherein the plurality of actuation portions extend through the plurality of apertures, wherein each of the plurality of actuation portions is configured to actuate one of the plurality of switches.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art made of record teaches wireless charger having a movable platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Drew Dunn and he can be reached at 571.272.2312. The fax number for the organization where this application 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.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087