DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talapureddi et al. (U.S. 2024/0127703)1 in view of Gerusel (EP 3272594 A1) and Voelz et al. (U.S. 10044205).
Regarding claim 1, Talapureddi discloses (figs. 1-4) a chock 100 comprising: a body (triangle shape as shown) shaped to retain objects (wheels, see pgh. 0004); a compartment (area within chock) coupled to the body, the compartment having, a battery 105 for storing the electrical power; and control circuitry (wireless communication device 119, processor 121, memory 123, etc.) for regulating use of the electrical power; and a light source (106) electrically coupled to the control circuitry, wherein the light source emits light away from the chock as directed by the control circuitry (see pgh. 0025 at least).
Talapureddi does not appear to disclose the chock including an inductor for converting magnetic field energy into electrical power (that is then stored in the onboard battery). Rather, solar panels 104 are used to charge the onboard battery or power supplied from an electrical grid (see pgh. 0026), but this could be supplied by a power cable rather than inductive charging. In the same field of endeavor of wheel chocks with onboard electrical equipment, Gerusel teaches a wheel chock 10 with an integrated transmitting/receiving unit (pgh. 0027) and rechargeable battery (pgh. 0029) provided in the interior of the chock 10 for powering the tx/rx unit, where the battery is charged wirelessly (pgh.0029), i.e. by an inductor/ inductive charging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an inductor to charge the chock of Talapureddi as suggested by Gerusel in order to make the chock easier and more convenient to charge, particularly when the solar panels are unable to charge the chock at nighttime. Inductive charging is more convenient to use than a manual plug.
Talapureddi does not appear to disclose a charging stand. Voelz teaches a charging stand comprising a framework (18 at least), an inductive charging plate (38) coupled to the framework; at least one portable electronic device (pgh. 24, “inductively charge electronic devices when each device is positioned proximal to a charger 38”) on the inductive charging plate; and a power source (pgh. 23, “batteries”) electrically coupled to the inductive charging plate, wherein electrical power is converted into magnetic field energy to charge the device (standard operation of inductive charging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have charged the chock of Talapureddi using the charging stand of Voelz, as the chock is a “portable electronic device” that needs charging, and the charging stand of Voelz is suitable for charging portable electronic devices in general. After combining, the charging stand of Voelz operates as before by charging portable electronic devices, and the chock of Talapureddi also operates as before by being supplied with charge to power the LED light among other electronics. Together the devices provide additional benefits of ease of operation and charging of the chock while also providing a designated storage location for the chock when not in use, while also eliminating the need to have additional charging cables, and providing the ability to charge multiple chocks at the same time if desired. Further when viewed in combination, the charging stand is a “chock charging stand” as claimed, as the naming of the device correlates to what is being charged.
While the control circuitry of Talapureddi includes a wireless comms device, it does not disclose wirelessly communicating with a control module onboard the charging stand. Voelz teaches (pgh. 37) a computer or controller mounted to the cart, and a RFID reader system to identify individual electronic devices. Talapureddi further teaches a unique identifier 110 that can be an RFID tag (see pgh. 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the computer mounted to the cart as suggested by Voelz to allow for logging of the chocks (see pgh. 37 of Voelz).
Regarding claim 4, Talapureddi as modified discloses (figs. 1-4) the control circuitry includes one or more of a microcontroller (121), a GPS receiver (pgh. 0032: “GPS or other signals received by the wireless communications device 119”), and a transmitter-receiver (wireless communications device 119) for sending and receiving operating conditions, charging status, charging levels, alert settings, alert status, low battery indication, geographic positioning information, and error status of the at least one chock.
Regarding claim 6, Talapureddi as modified discloses the power source includes one or more of a battery (Voelz, pgh. 23, “battery”) mounted to the framework, an electrical plug capable of connection to a wall socket (pgh. 23, “cart 10 is plugged in to a power source”), a solar cell generating power from sunlight, and a wind turbine generating power from air flow.
Regarding claim 7, Talapureddi as modified discloses the at least one chock includes a pair of chocks connected by a tether (see fig. 3)
Regarding claim 12, Talapureddi as modified discloses the tether electrically connects the pair of chocks (pgh. 0030, “The connector inlet 116 may provide a space for connecting a rope, chain, electrical cording or wiring, or other connecting device for coupling one chock 100 with another chock to form a chock system for surrounding a wheel of an asset”).
Regarding claim 13, Talapureddi as modified discloses one or more of the GPS receiver and the transmitter/receiver send and/or receive location data for locating the chock (see pgh. 0032)
Regarding claim 14, Talapureddi as modified discloses the compartment is coupled to an exterior of the body (space holding 105, etc. coupled to triangular side of body, as shown).
Regarding claim 15, Talapureddi as modified discloses the body includes at least a bottom-side (120), an object-side (122), and an outward-facing-side (124), and wherein the light source is located on the outward-facing-side (as shown).
Regarding claim 16, Talapureddi as modified discloses the light source includes a plurality of light sources (see pgh. 0025, “LED array”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talapureddi et al. (U.S. 2024/0127703)2 in view of Gerusel (EP 3272594 A1) and Voelz et al. (U.S. 10044205), and further in view of Zadvinskis (U.S. 2018/0262030).
Regarding claim 8, Talapureddi as modified discloses port 116 which may function as an auxiliary charging port, but does not appear to disclose a wired cable to charge the chock via this port. Zadvinskis discloses passing by wired cable from the auxiliary charging port of the chock charging stand to the auxiliary charging port of the at least one chock. (see Zadvinskis claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided both inductive charging and a charge cable to provide multiple charging options. While inductive charging is convenient, wired charging is generally faster than wireless charging. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art can select the appropriate charger method based on need, whether charging needs to occur quickly or whether convenience of use is preferred and charging time is not crucial.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talapureddi et al. (U.S. 2024/0127703)1 in view of Gerusel (EP 3272594 A1) and Voelz et al. (U.S. 10044205), and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 112649894 A).
Regarding claim 17, Talapureddi discloses light source(s) on the outward-facing side (104, as shown), but does not appear to disclose light sources on opposing ends of the chock. Zhou teaches (fig. 2a) a chock including a light source device 201, including a light source on an outward-facing side of the chock (201a), and on opposing ends (201b and 201c) of the chock).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added lighting to the opposing ends of the chock as suggested by Zhao to improve visibility of the lights from additional vantage points. If a user is to the side of the chock and wheel, they might not be able to see the light source, so providing additional light sources on the opposing ends allows the user to see the chock from these vantage points.
Claim 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talapureddi et al. (U.S. 2024/0127703)1 in view of Gerusel (EP 3272594 A1) and Voelz et al. (U.S. 10044205), and further in view of Jeong et al. (U.S. 2013/0223048).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Talapureddi does not appear to disclose a switch for operating the chock. Jeong teaches a chock 100 including LED lights 200, where there is also a manual toggle switch 310 for operating the chock between on and off conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the power switch of Jeong to the chock of Talapureddi to prevent the lights from coming on when not needed, e.g. during the daytime.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talapureddi et al. (U.S. 2024/0127703)1 in view of Gerusel (EP 3272594 A1) Voelz et al. (U.S. 10044205), and Jeong et al. (U.S. 2013/0223048), and further in view of Scheffer (U.S. 2009/0150243).
Regarding claim 19, Talapureddi does not appear to disclose a light sensitive sensor. In the same field of endeavor of chocks, Scheffer teaches a chock 20 with a LCD display 522, where the active display is controlled by a light sensitive sensor (photocell 534) that operates the chock (LED display thereof) based on ambient light input (pgh. 0141: “In one embodiment, the controller 524 may cause, for example, the active display 522 to be back-lit when it is dark, but cause the active display 522 to operate without back-lighting and conserve energy when it is light out.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the light sensor of Scheffer to the chock of Talapureddi to allow for automated control of the lights of the chock based on ambient lighting conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
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 DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571) 272-7124. 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 R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
1 Talapureddi qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(2) with a filing date of 12/6/2022, which is earlier than the effective filing date of the instant application of 1/10/2023.
2 Talapureddi qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(2) with a filing date of 12/6/2022, which is earlier than the effective filing date of the instant application of 1/10/2023.