DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention, specifically a drawing indicating the “mobility device” in its mounted position on the charging cradle. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are indicated in the table below, along with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB citation)
“wireless charging apparatus configured to…”
1, 2
[0047] a device comprising a transmission module which rectifies an AC signal received via a coil
“wireless power supply apparatus configured to…”
1, 3
[0048] a device comprising a reception module which transmits an AC signal via a coil
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-11 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.
Claim 5 recites “the housing”, however, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this term. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting “the housing” as “the holder” or the “charging cradle”.
Claims 6 and 7 recite “the housing”, however, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this term. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting “the housing” as a “housing”.
Claims 10-11 recites “the reception for receiving circuit”. It is unclear what this means. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting this as “the reception circuit”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deri et al. WIPO Publication WO2021/224647A2 in view of Creanga European Publication EP3386070A1. (It is noted that the Deri citations are taken from the attached copy with paragraph numbers).
Regarding claim 1, Deri discloses a charging system for a mobility device [fig. 1a, charging system 12 for device 20], the charging system comprising:
a charging cradle on which the mobility device is configured to be mounted [fig. 1a, cradle 12; abs, par. 49 & 58; the cradle 12 has a charging circuit for charging the scooter 20];
a wireless power supply apparatus configured to generate a charging power signal using power supplied from a power source and wirelessly transmit the charging power signal [par. 58; inductive charging circuit 31 transfers energy from a source to the receiving circuit on the scooter (21)];
a joint provided in an inner space of a holder of the charging cradle [figs. 2a & 2c; 11 within inner space of holder 4 of cradle 12] and coupled to the wireless power supply apparatus so that the wireless power supply apparatus can rotate within a predetermined angular range [fig. 2C; pars 59; the docking unit 4 can be pivoted related to the vehicle unit 2 via the rods and springs 11 “within a predefined spatial angle range”]; and
a wireless charging apparatus configured to wirelessly receive the charging power signal from the wireless power supply apparatus to charge a battery of the mobility device [fig. 1a-2c; pars. 49, 51-52 & 58; vehicle unit 2 has a charging circuit 21 with a rectifying circuit for charging the vehicle battery 212], wherein the wireless power supply apparatus is coupled while being positioned in the inner space formed in the holder of the charging cradle so as to be rotatable with respect to the charging cradle [par. 59; inductive charging circuit 31 flexible rotates with respect to 12 via the rods and springs 11].
Deri does not explicitly disclose the joint is a ball joint.
However, Creanga discloses a vehicle charging system which adjusts relative position between the vehicle and transmitter and uses a ball joint as the joint [par. 12-15 & 29; ball joint for adjusting position between transmitter and receiver].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deri to further include wherein the joint is a ball joint for the purpose of accommodating bicycles of different sizes, as taught by Creanga (pars. 12-15 & 29).
Regarding claim 2, Deri discloses wherein the wireless charging apparatus is mounted on a T-bar of the mobility device [figs. 1-3a; the wireless charging device 2 is mounted on the T-bar of the scooter (the long stem].
Regarding claim 3, Deri discloses wherein the wireless power supply apparatus is configured to be rotated according to an angle at which the wireless charging apparatus is mounted on the T-bar of the mobility device [par. 59].
Regarding claim 4, Deri discloses wherein:
the joint includes a shaft [fig. 2c, rod around which the springs are wrapped].
Deri does not explicitly disclose the ball joint includes a ball hinge and a shaft, the holder includes a ball joint housing positioned in an inside direction of the holder at the position of an opening formed in the inner space, and the ball hinge is coupled to the ball joint housing so that the shaft comes out through the opening.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the mechanical arts, if not practically the only manner of use of a ball joint, to use a ball joint with a hinge and shaft and the shaft coming out through the opening. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deri to further include the ball joint includes a ball hinge and a shaft, the holder includes a ball joint housing positioned in an inside direction of the holder at the position of an opening formed in the inner space, and the ball hinge is coupled to the ball joint housing so that the shaft comes out through the opening for the purpose of using a standard available ball joint, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Deri discloses further comprising: a spring located on a rear surface of the housing in a form surrounding the joint and mitigating impact when the mobility device is mounted on the charging cradle [par. 59; fig. 2C, spring 11 allowing flexibility (thus mitigating impact].
Deri does not explicitly disclose the joint is a ball joint.
However, Creanga as applied in claim 1 discloses the joint is a ball joint.
Regarding claim 6, Deri discloses wherein the wireless power supply apparatus includes a plurality of magnetic parts [fig. 2c, par. 52; permanent magnets 5], and the wireless charging apparatus includes a plurality of magnetic parts corresponding in position to the plurality of magnetic parts, respectively [fig. 2c, magnets 6; par. 52].
Deri does not explicitly disclose the magnetic parts in the wireless charging apparatus are iron.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the connector arts to use iron parts to correspond to magnets, since the vast majority of magnets use at least some iron. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deri to further include the magnetic parts in the wireless charging apparatus are iron for the purpose of reducing cost and using readily available parts, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Deri discloses wherein the plurality of magnetic parts are located in areas adjacent to each of sides of one inner surface of the housing [fig. 2c; magnets 5/6; par. 52; unclear whether the magnets are in each corner or just top/bottom due to lack of frontal view, but they are inside the housing 4].
Deri does not explicitly disclose the magnets are on four corners.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the connector arts to use magnets on four corners. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deri to further include the magnets are on four corners for the purpose of ensuring a secure attachment, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Deri discloses wherein the wireless power supply apparatus includes:
a housing including the plurality of magnetic parts and inserted into the inner space of the holder [figs. 2a-2c; the housing with magnetic parts 5 is in the inner space of the holder (fig. 2a, the cavity); par. 52];
a circuit board located in an inner space of the housing; and a cover covering the inner space of the housing [figs. 2c & 3a; a circuit board 31 is in the inner space of the housing 4 and a cover covers it (fig. 3b); par. 58].
Regarding claim 9, Deri discloses wherein the wireless charging apparatus includes:
a housing including the plurality of magnets [figs. 2c-3b; housing 2 with the magnets; par. 52];
a circuit board located in an inner space of the housing; and a cover covering the inner space of the housing [figs. 2c & 3a; a circuit board 21 is in the inner space of the housing 2 and a cover covers it (fig. 3b); par. 58].
Deri does not explicitly disclose the magnets are iron parts, however, Official Notice as applied in claim 6 discloses the magnets are iron parts.
Regarding claim 12, Deri discloses a wireless power supply apparatus installed on a charging cradle where a mobility device is configured to be mounted [fig. 2a-3a, docking unit 4 in cradle 12], the wireless power supply apparatus comprising:
a housing inserted into an inner space formed in a holder of the charging cradle [figs. 2a & 2c; 4 has a housing within inner space of cradle 12];
a circuit board located in an inner space of the housing and patterned with a transmission circuit configured to generate a charging power signal using power supplied from a power source and transmits the charging power signal wirelessly [par. 58-60; charging circuit 31 has a coil for transmitting (transmission) to generate a wireless charging circuit;
a cover covering the inner space of the housing [circuit board 31 is in the inner space of the housing 4 and a cover covers it (fig. 3b); par. 58]; and
a joint provided in the inner space of the holder [figs. 2a & 2c; 11 within inner space of holder 4 of cradle 12] and coupled to the wireless power supply apparatus so that the wireless power supply apparatus can rotate within a predetermined angular range [fig. 2C; pars 59; the docking unit 4 can be pivoted related to the vehicle unit 2 via the rods and springs 11 “within a predefined spatial angle range”].
Deri does not explicitly disclose the joint is a ball joint.
However, Creanga discloses a vehicle charging system which adjusts relative position between the vehicle and transmitter and uses a ball joint as the joint [par. 12-15 & 29; ball joint for adjusting position between transmitter and receiver].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deri to further include wherein the joint is a ball joint for the purpose of accommodating bicycles of different sizes, as taught by Creanga (pars. 12-15 & 29).
Regarding claim 13, Deri discloses wherein:
the inner space of the housing includes a plurality of magnetic parts containing a plurality of magnets [fig. 2c, magnets 6; par. 52; the magnets 5 are inside the housing 4], respectively, the plurality of magnets are in close contact with a plurality of iron pieces in a plurality of magnetic part included in a wireless charging apparatus mounted on the mobility device by magnetic force [fig. 2c, magnets 6; par. 52].
Deri does not explicitly disclose the magnetic parts in the wireless charging apparatus are iron.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the connector arts to use iron parts to correspond to magnets, since the vast majority of magnets use at least some iron. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deri to further include the magnetic parts in the wireless charging apparatus are iron for the purpose of reducing cost and using readily available parts, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Deri discloses wherein the plurality of magnetic parts are located in areas adjacent to each of sides of one inner surface of the housing [fig. 2c; magnets 5/6; par. 52; unclear whether the magnets are in each corner or just top/bottom due to lack of frontal view, but they are inside the housing 4].
Deri does not explicitly disclose the magnets are on four corners.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the connector arts to use magnets on four corners. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deri to further include the magnets are on four corners for the purpose of ensuring a secure attachment, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, Deri discloses further comprising: a spring located on a rear surface of the housing in a form surrounding the joint and mitigating impact when the mobility device is mounted on the charging cradle [par. 59; fig. 2C, spring 11 allowing flexibility (thus mitigating impact].
Deri does not explicitly disclose the joint is a ball joint.
However, Creanga as applied in claim 12, disclose the joint is a ball joint.
Regarding claim 16, Deri discloses wherein the joint includes a shaft [fig. 2c, rod around which the springs are wrapped].
Deri does not explicitly disclose the ball joint includes a ball hinge and a shaft, the holder includes a ball joint housing positioned in an inside direction of the holder at the position of an opening formed in the inner space of the holder, and the ball hinge is coupled to the ball joint housing so that the shaft comes out through the opening.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the mechanical arts, if not practically the only manner of use of a ball joint, to use a ball joint with a hinge and shaft and the shaft coming out through the opening. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deri to further include the ball joint includes a ball hinge and a shaft, the holder includes a ball joint housing positioned in an inside direction of the holder at the position of an opening formed in the inner space, and the ball hinge is coupled to the ball joint housing so that the shaft comes out through the opening for the purpose of using a standard available ball joint, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 17, Deri discloses wherein the wireless power supply apparatus is rotated to match an angle at which the wireless charging apparatus is mounted on a T-bar of the mobility device [par. 59; figs. 2a-3c].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. With respect to claim 10, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “a reception controller receiving voltage information from a user” and “a buck converter for generating a voltage corresponding to the voltage information from the DC voltage according to the control of the reception controller” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 10.
Claim 11, being dependent on claim 10, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Haag et al. US PGPUB 2019/0016218 disclose an electric vehicle charging system which uses a ball joint for positioning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights