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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 02/17/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“the one or more hooks includes an adjustable cleat” – The drawings do not depict an “adjustable cleat” being part of a “hook”. Figs. 18A-18C depict hooks, but not how an adjustable cleat may be part of a hook.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification lacks antecedent basis for the “lid” of claim 7.
The specification lacks antecedent basis for the “adjustable cleat” of claim 11. The term “cleat” is addressed by ¶ [40, 45, 47, 49-50, 54-60], but not an “adjustable cleat”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7 recites “and second mount interface”, which should be revised to “and a second mount interface”.
Claims 15 and 17 recite “the mount portion”, which should be revised to “the [[mount]] mounting portion”, to align with the term introduced in claim 1, line 9.
Claim 18 recites “the charging station as a length”, which should be revised to “the charging station [[as]] has a length”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 8, 11, and 13 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 6 recites “insertable into the plurality of charging ports in different directions”. This language is unclear as to what “in different directions” is intended to modify. If modifying “the plurality of charging ports”, then the claim is interpreted to mean the plurality of charging ports are located on portions of the charging station that are in different directions, such as on the “first wing extending from the hub in a first direction” and on the “second wing extending from the hub in a second direction opposite the first direction”. If modifying “insertable”, as assumed for examination purposes, then the claim would mean the insertion of one battery pack requires movement (such as sliding) in a different direction than that of the other battery pack.
Claim 8 recites “the mount assembly defines a lip extending from the second side and engageable with the lip”. The language is unclear what is meant by saying the lip is engageable with itself. It seems a lip is inherently engageable with itself by being the same feature. This interpretation is relied upon for the prior art rejection of claim 8, included infra.
To support compact prosecution, an additional discussion is included in the prior art rejection for a potential revised limitation “the mount assembly defines a lip extending from the second side and engageable with the [[lip]] rim”. This additional discussion is not relied upon as a rejection.
Claim 11 recites “the one or more hooks includes an adjustable cleat”. This limitation is unclear as to how a hook (such as that of “294a-294c in drawing Figs. 18-18C) can include an adjustable cleat. Thus, the examiner instead interprets this language as “the one or more hooks interfaces to an adjustable cleat”.
Claim 13 is indefinite as to the plurality of “adjustable clips”. Claim 12 introduced “one or more adjustable clips”, which may be broadly interpreted as a either singular or plural. However, claim 13 uses plural form “adjustable clips”, which disagrees with claim 12. For examination purposes, “the adjustable clips” of claim 12 is instead interpreted as “the one or more adjustable clips”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 18, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/480,651 (amended claims received 09/23/2025) in view of Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The following table compares the instant and copending applications. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text.
Instant Application (18/168,460)
Copending Application (17/480,651)
1. A charging station removably mountable on a structure, the charging station comprising:
a housing defining a first side and a second side opposite the first side;
(NOTE: See copending’s claim 16; “first side” = “front housing; “second side” = “rear housing”)
a plurality of charging ports disposed on the first side,
each of the plurality of charging ports including a battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a battery pack;
(NOTE: See prior mapping of “first side” and “second side”)
and a mount assembly disposed on the second side and engageable with the structure to removably mount the charging station thereon,
the mount assembly including a first mount interface and second mount interface,
the second mount interface being different than the first mount interface.
15. A charging station for use with a gang box, the charging station comprising:
(NOTE: “removably mountable” due to “rail” and “cleat” later in claim 15)
a housing defining an electronics hub, a first wing extending in a direction along its length away from the electronics hub, and a second wing extending in an opposite direction along its length away from the electronics hub on an opposite side from the first wing; and
a plurality of ports disposed on the housing,
each of the plurality of ports including a battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a battery pack,
at least one battery receptacle defined in the electronics hub and configured to receive a battery pack in a direction that is transverse to a direction in which another battery receptacle is configured to receive another battery pack.
18. The charging station of claim 15, wherein 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.
(NOTE: “rail” = “first mount interface”; “cleat” = “second mount interface”)
2. The charging station of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of charging ports includes a first charging port including a first battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a battery pack of a first type,
and a second charging port including a second battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a battery pack of a second type different than the first type.
20. The charging station of claim 15,
wherein 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.
3. The charging station of claim 2, further comprising:
a hub configured to house electronics for controlling the charging station;
a first wing extending from the hub in a first direction;
and a second wing extending from the hub in a second direction opposite the first direction,
wherein the first side is a forward side, and the second side is a rear side.
(NOTE: See copending’s claim 15:
“electronics hub”, first wing”, “second wing”)
4. The charging station of claim 3,
wherein the first charging port is positioned on the first wing,
and wherein the second charging port is positioned on one or more of the second wing and the hub.
(see claim 15: “at least one battery receptacle defined in the electronics hub”)
5. The charging station of claim 2, wherein the first battery receptacle includes a slot and a rail, and wherein the second battery receptacle includes a socket.
(not claimed in copending application)
6. The charging station of claim 2,
wherein the battery pack of the first type and the battery pack of the second type are insertable into the plurality of charging ports in different directions.
(see claim 15: “configured to receive a battery pack in a direction that is transverse to a direction in which another battery receptacle is configured to receive another battery pack”)
7. The charging station of claim 1,
wherein the structure is a container including a lid and walls,
and wherein the charging station is selectively removably mountable to one or more of the lid and the walls.
(see claim 15: “gang box”, which would have a lid and walls)
(see claim 18: “the rear housing defining a rail with a cleat to facilitate attaching the housing to the gang box”)
8. The charging station of claim 1,
wherein the structure is a container defining a rim,
and wherein the mount assembly defines a lip extending from the second side and engageable with the lip.
(not claimed in copending application)
Regarding Claim 1, the copending application does not claim “a plurality of charging ports disposed on the first side”. However, the copending application does claim “a plurality of charging ports disponsed on the housing” and that the housing “includes a front side”
Burch teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) a plurality of charging ports disposed on the first side.
Burch further teaches position of the charging ports to make them accessible to the user and leave room on the second side for the mounting features (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify charging station of the copending application’s claims 15, 18, and 20 to dispose the plurality of charging ports on the first side of the housing, as taught by Burch, to make the charging ports accessible to the user and leave room on the second side for the mounting features.
Regarding Claim 2, the claimed dependent subject matter is included in the copending application’s claim 20.
Regarding Claim 6, the claimed dependent subject matter is included in the copending application’s claim 15.
Regarding Claim 7, the claimed dependent subject matter is included in the copending application’s claims 15 and 18.
Claims 3-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 18, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/480,651 (amended claims received 09/23/2025) in view of Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1) and Hennesy (US 2019/0199101 A1; hereinafter “Hen”).
Regarding Claim 3, the copending application does not claim that the hub is “configured to house electronics for controlling the charging station”.
Hen teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) a hub configured to house electronics for controlling the charging station.
Hen further teaches the electronics for controlling the charging station to enable the transfer of power between an input supply and the battery charging ports which are located external to the hub (¶ [16, 52-53]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hub of the copending application’s claims 15, 18, and 20 to be configured to house electronics for controlling the charging station, as taught by Hen, to enable the transfer of power between an input supply and the battery charging ports.
Regarding Claim 4, the copending application does not claim “the first charging port is positioned on the first wing”.
Burch teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the first charging port is positioned on the first wing.
Burch further teaches arrangement of the first charging port to make it accessible to the user and leave room on the second wing and hub for the second charging port (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging station of the copending application’s claims 15, 18, and 20 to position the first charging port on the first wing, as taught by Burch, to make the first charging port easily accessible to the user and leave room on the second wing and hub for the second charging port
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 18, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/480,651 (amended claims received 09/23/2025) in view of Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1) and Fry et al. (US 2015/0171632 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the copending application does not claim “the first battery receptacle includes a slot and a rail, and wherein the second battery receptacle includes a socket”.
Fry teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the first battery receptacle includes a slot and a rail, and wherein the second battery receptacle includes a socket.
Fry further teaches these configurations of the two battery receptacles to enable the charging of multiple different battery pack shapes, including “tower style” and “slide-on style” (¶ [35-36]), each of which are commonly used for power tools (¶ [3-4]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and second battery receptacles of the copending application’s claims 15, 18, and 20 to be a slot/rail and a socket, respectively, as taught by Fry, to enable the charging of a wider variety of battery packs used for power tools.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 18, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/480,651 (amended claims received 09/23/2025) in view of Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1) and Workman (US 2019/0375092 A1; hereinafter “Work”).
Regarding Claim 8, the copending application does not claim “wherein the structure is a container defining a rim, and wherein the mount assembly defines a lip extending from the second side and engageable with the lip”.
Work teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) wherein the structure is a container defining a rim, and wherein the mount assembly defines a lip extending from the second side and engageable with the lip/rim.
Work further teaches the lip structure of the mount assembly as a simple design that enables the charging station to be mounted on a rim of the container without requiring extra features such as hooks, cleats, magnets, clips, etc. (¶ [69-72]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mount assembly of the copending application’s claims 15, 18, and 20 to incorporate a lip, as taught by Work, to enable the charging station to easily mount to the rim of the container without requiring extra features such as hooks, cleats, magnets, clips, etc.
Claims 9 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 17-18, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/480,651 (amended claims received 09/23/2025) in view of Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1).
The following table compares the instant and copending applications. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text.
Instant Application (18/168,460)
Copending Application (17/480,651)
9. A charging station removably mountable on a structure including a container,
the charging station comprising: a charging portion;
a mounting portion;
a first charging port disposed on the charging portion, the first charging port including a first battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a battery pack of a first type;
a second charging port disposed on the charging portion, the second charging port including a second battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a battery pack of a second type different than the first type;
and a mount assembly coupled to the mounting portion and selectively couplable with the container.
15. A charging station for use with a gang box, the charging station comprising:
(NOTE: “removably mountable” due to “rail” and “cleat” later in claim 15)
a housing defining an electronics hub, a first wing extending in a direction along its length away from the electronics hub, and a second wing extending in an opposite direction along its length away from the electronics hub on an opposite side from the first wing; and
a plurality of ports disposed on the housing,
(NOTE: See copending’s claim 18; “rear housing”)
each of the plurality of ports including a battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a battery pack,
(NOTE: See copending’s claim 20; “first receptacle configured to receive and charge a first type of battery pack”)
(NOTE: See copending’s claim 20; “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”)
at least one battery receptacle defined in the electronics hub and configured to receive a battery pack in a direction that is transverse to a direction in which another battery receptacle is configured to receive another battery pack.
18. The charging station of claim 15, wherein 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.
(NOTE: “rail” = “first mount interface”; “cleat” = “second mount interface”)
20. The charging station of claim 15,
wherein 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.
10. The charging station of claim 9, wherein the mount assembly includes one or more hooks.
(not claimed in copending application)
11. The charging station of claim 10, wherein the one or more hooks includes an adjustable cleat removably coupled to one or more of the charging station and the container.
(not claimed in copending application)
12. The charging station of claim 9, wherein the mount assembly includes one or more adjustable clips integrally formed with the charging station.
(not claimed in copending application)
13. The charging station of claim 12, wherein the adjustable clips are retractable into the mounting portion of the charging station.
(not claimed in copending application)
14. The charging station of claim 9, wherein the mount assembly includes one or more clips magnetically coupled to the charging station
(not claimed in copending application)
15. The charging station of claim 9, wherein the mount portion includes a plurality of apertures each configured to receive a fastener secured to one or more of the mount assembly and the container.
(not claimed in copending application)
16. The charging station of claim 15, wherein each aperture is keyed and configured to receive a head of the fastener.
(not claimed in copending application)
17. The charging station of claim 9, wherein the mount portion includes a plurality of through-holes each configured to receive a fastener secured to one or more of the mount assembly and the container.
(not claimed in copending application)
18. The charging station of claim 9, wherein the charging station as a length, and wherein the length of the charging station is approximately half a length of the container.
17. The charging station of claim 15,
wherein the housing defines a length, the length of the housing being approximately half the length of the gang box.
19. The charging station of claim 15, wherein the length of the charging station is less than a length of a side wall of the container.
(NOTE: copending claim 17 reads on this limitation)
Regarding Claim 9, the copending application does not claim “a charging portion” and that each of the first charging port and second charging port are “disposed on the charging portion”.
Burch teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) a charging portion; a first charging port disposed on the charging portion; and a second charging port disposed on the charging portion.
Burch further teaches position of the charging ports to make them accessible to the user and leave room on the second side for the mounting features (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify charging station of the copending application’s claims 15, 17-18, and 20 to dispose the plurality of charging ports on a charging portion, as taught by Burch, to make the charging ports accessible to the user and leave room on the second side for the mounting features.
Regarding Claim 18, the claimed dependent subject matter is included in the copending application’s claims 15 and 17.
Claims 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 17-18, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/480,651 (amended claims received 09/23/2025) in view of Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1) and Manulik et al. (US 2020/0124256 A1; hereinafter “Manu”).
Regarding Claim 10, the copending application does not claim “the mount assembly includes one or more hooks”.
Manu teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the mount assembly includes one or more hooks.
Manu teaches the hook mechanism to enable the device to be portable and easily hung on an external structure (¶ [5, 64]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mount assembly of the copending application’s claims 15, 17-18, and 20 to incorporate a hook, as taught by Manu, to enable the charging station to be portable and easily hung on the structure.
Regarding Claim 11, the copending application does not claim “the one or more hooks includes an adjustable cleat removably coupled to one or more of the charging station and the container”.
Manu teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the one or more hooks includes an adjustable cleat removably coupled to one or more of the charging station and the structure (akin to the container, as discussed infra).
Manu teaches the adjustable cleat to better secure the hook in place (¶ [84]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mount assembly of the copending application’s claims 15, 17-18, and 20 to incorporate an adjustable cleat, as further taught by Manu, to better secure the hook in place when hanging the charging station on the container.
Claims 12-13 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 17-18, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/480,651 (amended claims received 09/23/2025) in view of Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1) and Hennesy (US 2019/0199101 A1; hereinafter “Hen”).
Regarding Claims 12-13, the copending application does not claim “wherein the mount assembly includes one or more adjustable clips integrally formed with the charging station” and “the adjustable clips are retractable into the mounting portion of the charging station”.
Hen teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the mount assembly includes one or more adjustable clips integrally formed with the portable electronic device (akin to the charging station, as discussed infra).
Hen further teaches the adjustable clips are retractable into the mounting portion of the portable electronic device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mount assembly of the copending application’s claims 15, 17-18, and 20 to incorporate one or more adjustable clips that are retractable into the mounting portion of the charging station, as taught by Hen, to ensure a secure mounting interface that ensures stability during movement and/or transport of the container.
Regarding Claim 17, the copending application does not claim “the mount portion includes a plurality of through-holes each configured to receive a fastener secured to one or more of the mount assembly and the container.”.
Hen teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the mount portion includes a plurality of through-holes each configured to receive a fastener secured to one or more of the mount assembly and the structure (akin to the container, as discussed infra).
Hen teaches the mount portion structure with through-holes for fasteners to secure the charging station to the structure improve support and stability (¶ [49-50]), which avoids introducing a hazard associated with an unstably mounted station (¶ [51]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mount assembly of the copending application’s claims 15, 17-18, and 20 to incorporate through-holes for fasteners to secure the charging station to the container, as taught by Hen, to improve support and stability for the mounted charging station, which improves safety.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 17-18, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/480,651 (amended claims received 09/23/2025) in view of Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1) and Rothbaum et al. (US 2011/0192857 A1; hereinafter “Roth”).
Regarding Claim 14, the copending application does not claim “the mount assembly includes one or more clips magnetically coupled to the charging station”.
Roth teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the mount assembly includes one or more clips magnetically coupled to the portable electronic device (akin to the charging station, as discussed infra).
Roth further teaches the magnetically coupled clip to enable convenient mounting, as removal of the mount assembly to minimize clutter, prevent loss of the mounted device, and provide a convenient structure to store the device (¶ [4-5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mount assembly of the copending application’s claims 15, 17-18, and 20 to incorporate one or more magnetically coupled clips, as taught by Roth, to enable convenient mounting, as removal of the mount assembly to minimize clutter, prevent loss of the mounted charging station, and provide a convenient structure to store the charging station.
Claims 15-16 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 17-18, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/480,651 (amended claims received 09/23/2025) in view of Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1) and Sergyeyenko (US 2019/0058339 A1; hereinafter “Serg”).
Regarding Claim 15, the copending application does not claim “wherein the mount portion includes a plurality of apertures each configured to receive a fastener secured to one or more of the mount assembly and the container”.
Serg teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the mount portion includes a plurality of apertures each configured to receive a fastener secured to one or more of the mount assembly and the container.
Serg further teaches the mounting interface’s structure, including apertures and fasteners, to provide a secure fit/attachment to the container (¶ [60-62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mount portion of the copending application’s claims 15, 17-18, and 20 to include apertures that receive fasteners between the mount assembly and the container, as taught by Serg, to provide a secure fit/attachment to the container.
Regarding Claim 16, the copending application does not claim “each aperture is keyed and configured to receive a head of the fastener”.
Serg further teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) each aperture is keyed and configured to receive a head of the fastener.
Serg further teaches the mounting interface’s structure, including apertures and fasteners, to provide a secure fit/attachment to the container (¶ [60-62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mount portion of the copending application’s claims 15, 17-18, and 20 for the apertures to be keyed and configured to receive a head of the fastener, as further taught by Serg, to provide a secure fit/attachment to the container.
Regarding Claim 19, the claimed dependent subject matter is included in the copending application’s claims 15 and 17.
Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 18, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/480,651 (amended claims received 09/23/2025) in view of Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1) and Hennesy (US 2019/0199101 A1; hereinafter “Hen”).
The following table compares the instant and copending applications. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text.
Instant Application (18/168,460)
Copending Application (17/480,651)
20. A charging station comprising:
a hub configured to house electronics for controlling the charging station;
a first wing extending from the hub in a first direction;
a second wing extending from the hub in a second direction opposite the first direction;
a first charging port disposed on one or more of the first wing and the second wing, the first charging port including a first battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a battery pack of a first type;
a second charging port disposed on the hub,
the second charging port including a second battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a battery pack of a second type different than the first type;
and a mount assembly coupled to one or more of the hub, the first wing, and the second wing, wherein the mount assembly is configured to selectively mount the charging station on a structure.
15. A charging station for use with a gang box, the charging station comprising:
a housing defining an electronics hub,
a first wing extending in a direction along its length away from the electronics hub,
and a second wing extending in an opposite direction along its length away from the electronics hub on an opposite side from the first wing; and
a plurality of ports disposed on the housing,
each of the plurality of ports including a battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a battery pack,
(NOTE: See copending’s claim 20; “first receptacle configured to receive and charge a first type of battery pack”)
(NOTE: See copending’s claim 20: “at least one battery receptacle defined in the electronics hub ")
(NOTE: See copending’s claim 20; “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”)
at least one battery receptacle defined in the electronics hub and configured to receive a battery pack in a direction that is transverse to a direction in which another battery receptacle is configured to receive another battery pack.
18. The charging station of claim 15, wherein 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.
(NOTE: “mount assembly” = “rail” + “cleat”; “structure” = “gang box”)
20. The charging station of claim 15,
wherein 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.
Regarding Claim 20, the copending application does not claim the hub is “configured to house electronics for controlling the charging station”, the first charging port is “disposed on one or more of the first wing and the second wing”, and the mount assembly is “coupled to one or more of the hub, the first wing, and the second wing”.
Hen teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) a hub configured to house electronics for controlling the charging station.
Hen further teaches the electronics for controlling the charging station to enable the transfer of power between an input supply and the battery charging ports which are located external to the hub (¶ [16, 52-53]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging station of the copending application’s claims 15, 18, and 20 for the hub to house electronics for controlling the charging station, as taught by Hen, to enable the transfer of power between an input supply and the battery charging ports.
Burch teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) a first charging port disposed on the first wing.
Burch further teaches arrangement of the first charging port to make it accessible to the user and leave room on the second wing and hub for the second charging port (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging station of the copending application’s claims 15, 18, and 20 for the first charging port to be disposed on the first wing, as taught by Burch, to make the first charging port easily accessible to the user and leave room on the hub for the second charging port
Hen further teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) a mount assembly coupled to the hub.
Hen further teaches the mounting assembly to secure the charging station to a structure improve support and stability (¶ [49-50]), which avoids introducing a hazard associated with an unstably mounted station (¶ [51]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging station of the copending application’s claims 15, 18, and 20 for the mount assembly to be coupled to the hub, as further taught by Hen, to improve support and stability for the mounted charging station, which improves safety.
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 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1) in view of Taga et al. (US 2015/0137758 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Burch discloses a charging station (“battery charger fixture 212”; see annotated Fig. 2, included infra) mountable on a structure (“job box 200”, including “base 204” and “lid 208”; Fig. 2), the charging station (212) comprising the following features.
Burch further discloses a housing (housing of “212”) defining a first side (forward side, including the charging ports, shown in Fig. 2) and a second side (rear side, including mounting features, not shown in Fig. 2) opposite the first side.
Burch further discloses a plurality of charging ports (“charging ports 216, 220”; Fig. 2) disposed on the first side (forward/visible side of “212”).
Burch further discloses each of the plurality of charging ports (216, 220) including a battery receptacle (¶ [26]: “216 for charging a first type of battery pack”; ¶ [26]: “220 for charging a second type of battery pack”) configured to receive and charge a battery pack (¶ [26]: “216 for … an 18V power tool battery pack”; ¶ [26]: “220 for … a 12V power tool battery pack”).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1051
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Burch implies (¶ [26]: “212 coupled to the base 204 adjacent an upper edge of the base 204”), but does not disclose the charging station is “removably mountable” on the structure.
Burch further does not disclose “a mount assembly disposed on the second side and engageable with the structure to removably mount the charging station thereon, the mount assembly including a first mount interface and second mount interface, the second mount interface being different than the first mount interface”.
Taga teaches a charging station (“charger 10”; Figs. 25-27) removably mounted on a structure (“wall surface W”; Figs. 25-27).
Taga further teaches a mount assembly (combination of “hook portion 35”, “recessed hook portion 35a” “regulating portion 36”, “recessed releasing portion 36a”; Figs. 25-27) disposed on the second side (“bottom surface” of “10”; Figs. 25-27) and engageable with the structure (W) to removably mount the charging station (10) thereon.
Taga further teaches the mount assembly (35, 35a, 36, 36a) including a first mount interface (35) and second mount interface (36).
Taga further teaches the second mount interface (36) being different (35 is shaped to hold the weight; 36 is shaped differently to regulate the position of “10”) than the first mount interface (35).
Taga further teaches the mounting assembly to enable the charging station to mount on a structure, such as a wall, and be removable to improve usability of the charging ports by maintaining a stable position (¶ [4-5, 203, 205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging station disclosed by Burch to incorporate a mount assembly on the rear side, as taught by Taga, to improve usability of the charging ports by maintaining a stable position.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Burch and Taga teaches the charging station of claim 1.
Burch further discloses the plurality of charging ports (216, 220) includes a first charging port (216) including a first battery receptacle (¶ [26]: “216 for charging a first type of battery pack”) configured to receive and charge a battery pack of a first type (¶ [26]: “216 for … an 18V power tool battery pack”).
Burch further discloses a second charging port (220) including a second battery receptacle (¶ [26]: “220 for charging a second type of battery pack”) configured to receive and charge a battery pack of a second type (¶ [26]: “220 for … a 12V power tool battery pack”) different (“18V” vs. “12V”) than the first type (“18V power tool battery pack”).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Burch and Taga teaches the charging station of claim 1.
Burch further discloses the structure (200) is a container (“job box” is a “storage container” per ¶ [2]) including a lid (“lid 208”; Fig. 2) and walls (walls of “base 204”; Fig. 2).
The combination of Burch and Taga further teaches the charging station (Burch: 212; modified to incorporate mount assembly from Taga) is selectively removably mountable to the walls (Burch: walls of “base 204”; Taga equivalent: “wall W”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1) in view of Taga et al. (US 2015/0137758 A1) and Hennesy (US 2019/0199101 A1; hereinafter “Hen”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Burch and Taga teaches the charging station of claim 2, further comprising the following features.
Burch further discloses a hub (central portion of “212”; see annotated Fig. 2, included supra).
Burch further discloses a first wing (right side of “212”, containing first charging ports “216”; see annotated Fig. 2) extending from the hub (central portion of “212”) in a first direction (right-hand direction, as viewed in Fig. 2)
Burch further discloses a second wing (left side of “212”, containing second charging ports “220”; see annotated Fig. 2) extending from the hub (central portion of “212”) in a second direction (left-hand direction, as viewed in Fig. 2) opposite the first direction (right-hand direction).
Burch further discloses the first side is a forward side (front/visible side of “212” including the charging ports; shown in Fig. 2).
Burch further discloses the second side is a rear side (rear/hidden side of “212” including mounting features; hidden from view in Fig. 2)
As addressed supra, Burch discloses a hub. However, Burch does not disclose “a hub configured to house electronics for controlling the charging station”.
Hen teaches a hub (main portion of “battery pack charger system 1000” within “housing “160”, which does not include external components such as “handles 175” and “charging ports 100”; Fig. 1A, ¶ [16]) configured to house electronics (¶ [16]: “electronic components (not shown) located within the housing 160 may provide for the supply of power …”; ¶ [52]: “electronic components may include … printed circuit boards”) for controlling the charging station (1000).
Hen further teaches the electronics for controlling the charging station to enable the transfer of power between an input supply and the battery charging ports which are located external to the hub (¶ [16, 52-53]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hub disclosed by the combination of Burch and Taga to house electronics for controlling the charging station, as taught by Hen, to enable the transfer of power between an input supply and the battery charging ports.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Burch, Taga, and Hen teaches the charging station of claim 3.
Burch further discloses the first charging port (216) is positioned on the first wing (right side of “212”).
Burch further discloses the second charging port (220) is positioned on the second wing (left side of “212”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1) in view of Taga et al. (US 2015/0137758 A1) and Fry et al. (US 2015/0171632 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Burch and Taga teaches the charging station of claim 2.
Burch discloses the first battery receptacle (216) and the second battery receptacle (220).
Burch does not disclose “the first battery receptacle includes a slot and a rail, and wherein the second battery receptacle includes a socket”.
Fry teaches the first battery receptacle (“second battery pack port 72”; Fig. 5; ¶ [34, 36]) includes a slot (see annotated Fig. 5, included infra) and a rail (“rails 75”; Fig. 5).
Fry further teaches the second battery receptacle (“first battery pack port 70”; Fig. 5; ¶ [34-35]) includes a socket (“insertion hole 71”; ¶ [35]: “70 includes an insertion hole 71 to receive tower style battery packs”).
PNG
media_image2.png
746
905
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fry further teaches these configurations of the two battery receptacles to enable the charging of multiple different battery pack shapes, including “tower style” and “slide-on style” (¶ [35-36]), each of which are commonly used for power tools (¶ [3-4]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first/second battery receptacles disclosed by the combination of Burch and Taga to include a slot/rail configuration and a socket configuration, respectively, as taught by Fry, to enable the charging of a wider variety of battery packs used for power tools.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burch et al. (US 2018/0231238 A1) in view of Taga et al. (US 2015/0137758 A1) and Hansen et al. (US 2019/0296290 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Burch and Taga teaches the charging station of claim 2.
Burch discloses the battery pack of the first type (“18V power tool battery pack”) and the battery pack of the second type (“12V power tool battery pack”) are insertable into the plurality of charging ports (216, 220).
However, Burch does not disclose “the battery pack of the first type and the battery pack of the second type are insertable into the plurality of charging ports in different directions”
Hansen teaches the battery pack of the first type (tower-style battery pack “182”; see annotated Fig. 10,