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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yun (US 2009/0038864).
In re claim 26, Yun discloses an electric golf trolley (10) including a battery (490) for powering the trolley; the electric golf trolley having a discharging configuration (power switch 580 turned on) in which the electric golf trolley may be powered by the battery, and a non-discharging configuration (power switch 580 turned off) in which powering of the electric golf trolley by the battery is substantially prevented (current not supplied); the electric golf trolley being further configured to transition (power switch operated) from a driving arrangement (power on) to a storage arrangement (power off); wherein (i) during a transition from the driving arrangement to the storage arrangement (power switch operated) the electric golf trolley automatically transitions from the discharging configuration to a non-discharging configuration while the battery is part of the electric golf trolley, and/or (ii) during a transition from the storage arrangement to the driving arrangement (power switch operated) the electric golf trolley automatically transitions from the non-discharging configuration to the discharging configuration while the battery is part of the electric golf trolley.
In re claim 27, Yun further discloses wherein in the discharging configuration (power on) charging of the battery is substantially prevented. The Examiner notes that Yun does not disclose charging the battery while in discharging configuration (power on) and since “substantially” is a relative term, one could broadly interpret Yun as substantially preventing charging while it is being operated throughout a golf course.
In re claim 28, Yun further discloses wherein in the non-discharging configuration (power off) charging of the battery is permitted. The Examiner notes that when the trolley is not in use, there is nothing preventing the battery from being charged and is therefore “permitted”. The Examiner further notes that actual charging of the battery is not distinctly claimed.
Claims 58, 60, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US 5,526,894).
In re claim 58, Wang discloses an electric golf trolley battery pack (110) comprising a battery concealed within a pack housing (120), the pack housing being arranged to attach to an electric golf trolley (10) during use; the battery pack further comprising a displaceable portion (110 is removable) moveable relative to the pack housing (120); the displaceable portion being reciprocally moveable from a discharging position in which powering of the electric golf trolley is permitted (as shown in Figure 1) to a second non-discharging position in which powering of the electric golf trolley is substantially prevented (since battery is removed for charging); wherein the displaceable portion is configured to be displaced by a cooperating portion of the electric golf trolley.
In re claim 60, Wang further discloses the displaceable portion being arranged to be displaced by a cooperating portion (sides of casing 120) of an electric golf trolley.
In re claim 61, Wang further discloses an electric golf trolley (10) comprising the battery pack in accordance with claim 58 (as shown in Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Tse (US 2018/0208226).
In re claim 40, Yun discloses the electric golf trolley according to claim 26, but does not disclose comprising a battery charging port arranged at an external surface of the golf trolley. Tse, however, does disclose a battery powered golf trolley having a battery (134) and a charging port (136) for charging the battery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Yun such that it comprised the charging port of Tse to advantageously be able to charge the battery.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Wang.
In re claim 41, Yun further discloses a removable battery pack including the battery (as shown as being removed in Figure 3), but does not disclose wherein the trolley further comprises a latch reversibly biased towards a position in which the latch retains the battery pack on the electric golf trolley. Wang, however, does disclose comprising a removable battery pack including the battery; wherein the trolley further comprises a latch (122) reversibly biased towards a position in which the latch retains the battery pack on the electric golf trolley (as shown in Figures 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Yun such that it comprised the latch of Wang to advantageously secure the battery in place on the trolley.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Tse.
In re claim 59, Wang further discloses wherein the battery is provided in a battery pack (110) and concealed within a battery pack housing (120), and a displaceable portion (110 is removable) movable relative to the pack housing; the displaceable portion of the battery pack being reciprocally moveable from a discharging position to a charging position; the battery pack being arranged such that when the displaceable portion of the battery pack is in the charging position (battery removed), the battery is substantially electrically disconnected from the electric golf trolley (since battery is removed).
Wang does not specifically disclose the battery pack comprising a charging connector arranged to permit charging of the battery; wherein the charging connector is substantially obstructed in the discharging position and the charging connector is substantially exposed for charging.
Tse, however, does disclose a battery powered golf trolley having a battery (134) and a charging port (136) for charging the battery.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Wang such that it comprised the charging port of Wang to be able to charge the battery when removed for charging. It further would have been obvious to position the port on the back of the battery against the casing (120) to protect the port from debris (since it is obstructed in the in use discharging position) and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the automatic transition from the discharging configuration to the non-discharging configuration is associated with folding the electric golf trolley or part thereof, and/or the automatic transition from the non-discharging configuration to the discharging configuration is associated with unfolding the electric golf trolley or part thereof” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art teaches wherein the automatic transition is associated with removing the battery to charge it, not wherein it is associated with folding of the trolley.
Claims 31-35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “a base and a frame, the frame including at least one moveable portion; wherein the or each moveable portion of the frame is reversibly foldable relative to the base during the transition from the driving or a driveable arrangement to the storage arrangement; wherein folding the or each moveable portion of the frame relative to the base automatically transitions the electric golf trolley from the discharging configuration to the non-discharging configuration; and/or wherein unfolding the or each moveable portion of the frame relative to the base automatically transitions the electric golf trolley from the non-discharging configuration to the discharging configuration” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a wherein the act of folding/unfolding the trolley automatically transitions between discharging and non-discharging configurations.
Claims 36 and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “including a displaceable portion which is reciprocally displaceable from a discharging position in which the electric golf trolley may be powered by the battery and charging of the battery is substantially prevented, to a charging position in which charging of the battery is permitted and the battery is substantially electrically disconnected from the electric golf trolley; wherein the displaceable portion is configured to be automatically displaced from the discharging position to the charging position through folding of the electric golf trolley and/or the displaceable portion is configured to be automatically displaced from the charging position to the discharging position through unfolding of the electric golf trolley” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach wherein folding the trolley automatically displaces the displaceable portion.
Claims 38 and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the battery is provided in a battery pack and concealed within a battery pack housing, the battery pack comprising a charging connector arranged to permit charging of the battery; and a displaceable portion movable relative to the pack housing; the displaceable portion of the battery pack being reciprocally moveable from a discharging position in which charging via the charging connector is substantially obstructed, to a charging position in which the charging connector is substantially exposed for charging; the battery pack being arranged such that when the displaceable portion of the battery pack is in the charging position, the battery is substantially electrically disconnected from the electric golf trolley” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a battery pack having a charging connector and displaceable portion as claimed the manner such that when the displaceable portion exposes or obstructs the charging connector and when in the charging position, the battery is substantially electrically disconnected from the trolley while still being part of the trolley.
Claims 42-57 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “the electric golf trolley having a chargeable configuration in which charging of the battery is permitted, and an unchargeable configuration in which charging of the battery is substantially prevented; the electric golf trolley further being configured to transition between a driving arrangement and a storage arrangement; wherein (i) during a transition from the driving arrangement to the storage arrangement the electric golf trolley automatically transitions from the unchargeable configuration to the chargeable configuration while the battery is part of the electric golf trolley, and/or (ii) during the transition from the storage arrangement to the driving arrangement the electric golf trolley automatically transitions from the chargeable configuration to the unchargeable configuration while the battery is part of the electric golf trolley” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a golf trolley or cart wherein driving/storage arrangements are automatically related to and cause the transition between chargeable/unchargeable configurations while the battery is part of the trolley. The Examiner notes that the prior art could be charged while in a driving arrangement either with a remote battery charger, an on-board generator, or using solar. The prior art is only truly unchargeable if the battery is removed (in other words, “unchargeable” being understood as implying that it cannot physically be charged).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 26, the amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection. Regarding claim 42, Applicant’s arguments are found persuasive. Regarding claim 58, Applicant argues that Wang does not disclose an integrated, moveable component that is part of the battery pack that slides or moves to alternate between discharging and charging positions. The Examiner, however, maintains that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims Wang discloses the invention as claimed. The Examiner suggests adding more claim language to more distinctly claim these features.
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 Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights