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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of Remarks, filed on 01/16/2016 with respect to claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-16 has been withdrawn.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4. 7 -8 , 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockman et al. (US 2016/0327601), hereinafter Brockman, in view of Collins et al. (US 7,285,959), hereinafter Collins, in view of Jacobs (US 6,323,621).
As to claims 1 and 11, Brookman discloses 1. an apparatus for testing an electric ride-on vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a direct current (DC) socket [socket plugs] configured to receive a DC plug of a wall charger [wall plug , see figure 9]; a pair of junction plugs [see plugs in figure 1] and a control circuit [figure 67 , and 78; see ¶0047-0049; noted that the controller circuit analyze the outlet to be tested].
Brookman does not disclose explicitly, configured to receive a connector of a battery and a connector of a charging circuit; and a control circuit electrically coupled to the DC socket and the pair of junction plugs, the control circuit configured to test voltages of the battery, the wall charger, and the charging circuit.
Collins discloses in figure 1, configured to receive a connector of a battery [battery connection] and a connector of a charging circuit [charging circuit]; and the control circuit electrically coupled to the DC socket [DC sockets] and the pair of junction plugs [see figure 1, plugs], the control circuit configured to test voltages of the battery, the wall charger, and the charging circuit [the analyze (100) analyzes battery and charging system ; and Col. 3, lines 31-57].
.It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Brookman’s testing device to test battery and charging circuit as taught by Collins in order to be able to test battery and charging circuits in order to determine battery determinations and charging circuit faults.
Neither Brookman nor Collins discloses a socket.
Jacobs discloses in figure 7, plug and socket can be used interchangeably [seeCol.3, lines 50-54; noted that Jacobs discloses plug and socket are used interchangeably]] .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a socket or a plug in Brookman’s apparatus as taught by Jacob in order to maintaining compatibility and scalability.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use plugs and sockets interchangeability in Brookman’s apparatus in order to extend compatibility and scalability of the apparatus, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant’s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. tester, connectors such as sockets and plugs, etc.,) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As to claims 2 and 12, Brookman in combination with Collins discloses, an indicating light device [LEDs], wherein the control circuit is further configured to illuminate the indicating light device to indicate statuses of the battery, the wall charger, and the charging circuit [Brookman discloses LEDS (54-62) and also Collins discloses LEDs (110, 112,113 and 114)]..
As to claim 3, Brookman in combination with Collins discloses, wherein the indicating light device includes at least two light-emitting diodes (LEDs) [Brookman discloses LEDS (54-62) and also Collins discloses LEDs (110, 112,113 and 114)]
As to claim 4, Brookman discloses 4. a housing [the housing of the tester has front (36) and rear sides (38) including a viewing point [see figures 2-4], wherein the viewing point is positioned adjacent to the indicating light device such that the indicating light device is visible from outside the housing [see figure 2, the indicator lights and the LEDs are visible from outside].
As to claim 7, Brookman in combination with Collins, wherein the control circuit is further configured to: test the voltage of the battery when the pair of junction plugs are coupled to the connector of the battery, test the voltage of the wall charger when the DC socket of the apparatus is coupled to the DC plug of the wall charger, and test the voltage of the charging circuit when the pair of junction plugs are coupled to the connector of the charging circuit and the DC plug of the wall charger is coupled to a DC socket of the charging circuit [the charging circuit LEDs and the plugs are disclosed].
As to claim 8, Brookman in combination with Collins, wherein the control circuit includes a plurality of load resistors for testing load capacities of the battery and the wall charger [Brookman discloses with Collins disclosed loading and wall charging].
As to claim 10, Brookman in combination with Collins discloses, wherein the control circuit includes a switching transistor triode [Brookman discloses with Collins disclosed loading and wall charging].
As to claim 13, Brookman in combination with Collins discloses, wherein the indicating light device having a first light- emitting diode (LED) configured to emit a first color of light, and a second LED configured to emit a second color of light, and wherein the control circuit is further configured to illuminate the first LED to indicate a good status and illuminate the second LED to indicate a bad status [Brookman discloses in figure 5, possible different colors are used to show, Correct/Good, and etc.; see also ¶0037].
As to claim 15, Brookman in combination with Collins, wherein the control circuit is further configured to: test the voltage of the battery when the pair of junction plugs are coupled to the connector of the battery, test the voltage of the wall charger when the DC socket of the testing device is coupled to the DC socket of the wall charger, and test the voltage of the charging circuit when the pair of junction plugs are coupled to the connector of the charging circuit and the DC plug of the wall charger is coupled to a DC socket of the charging circuit [testing device has different colors to show testing status; see also ¶0037].
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookman in in view of Collins, in view of Jacobs
As to claim 5, , wherein the viewing point is positioned above the indicating light device.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use different location for positioning the indicator device so that the user easily visualize the status of each indicators, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookman in view of Collins, in view of Jacobs, and in view of Bublitz et al. (US 2006/0113956), hereinafter Bublitz.
As to claim 6, Brookman in combinations with Collins and Jacobs discloses all of the claim limitations except , herein the viewing point is a translucent window on a surface of the housing.
Bublitz discloses in figure 1, wherein the viewing point is a translucent window [figure 47, element 266] on a surface of the housing [noted that translucent cover is disclosed].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use translucent cover in Brookman’s apparatus as taught by Bublitz in order to provide for a user visually recognize battery status.
As to claim 14, Brookman in view of Collins and Bublitz disclose, wherein the testing device further includes a housing [housing discloses by Brookman], wherein the housing having a first shell and a second shell [front and rear sides], wherein the first shell having a translucent area [LED display is disclosed] on a surface of the first shell [and truculent cover is disclosed by Bublitz],
Neither Brookman nor Collins discloses, wherein the translucent area positioned above the indicating light device.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use different location for positioning the indicator device, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookman in view of Collins, in view of Jacobs and in view of Lambert (US 6,784,668)
As to claim 9, Brookman in combinations with Collins and Jacobs discloses all of the claim limitations except , wherein the control circuit includes a thermal fuse.
Lambert discloses in figure 1, wherein the control circuit includes a thermal fuse [thermal head with fuse elements discloses, see Abstract].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the inventor was made to use thermal fuse in Brookman’s device as taught by Lambert in order to protect thermal runaway.
As to claim 16, Lambert discloses in figure 1, wherein the control circuit including an electronic controller, a plurality of load resistors, a thermal fuse, and a switching transistor triode [see Abstract].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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 A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859