DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action for 18/299,851, filed 4/13/2023, which claims priority to provisional application 63/330,991, filed 4/14/2022, after the request for continued examination filed 10/27/2025.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, and 18-20 are pending; Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, and 18 are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 10/27/2025, the rejections have been withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0045781 A1
This reference teaches a portable solar-powered charger with a charging cord, a solar panel within the charger body, and a wall plug that folds into a recess in the body (Figs. 1 and 13).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang, et al. (U.S. Patent 5,780,993), in view of Bessa, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0284216 A1) and Scarmozzino (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0299528 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Tsang teaches a solar-powered charging block device (Fig. 16, with additional details given in Figs. 1-2, column 2, line 59, through column 3, line 30, and column 4, lines 18-39).
The solar-powered charging block device of Tsang comprises a body 16 (Fig. 1, column 2, lines 60-65) comprising a wall plug 20 attached to the body via a hinge (Fig. 1, column 3, lines 15-23).
The solar-powered block charging device comprises a solar panel 120 (Fig. 16, column 4, lines 18-39).
The solar-powered block charging device comprises a battery 26 (Figs. 1 and 16, column 4, lines 18-39).
The solar-powered block charging device comprises a charging port 41 (Fig. 1, column 3, lines 24-29).
The solar-powered block charging device comprises battery indicators 23 and 25 (Fig. 2, column 3, lines 10-15).
Tsang does not teach that the solar-powered charging block device comprises a button.
To solve the same problem of providing a portable, solar-powered battery charger comprising a battery status indicator comprising a light, Bessa teaches a configuration in which a button is used to turn on and turn off battery status indicator lights on such a charger (paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the charging block of Tsang with a button to control whether the indicator lights 23/25 are on or off, as in Bessa, because this modification would allow a user to shut off the indicator lights when not needed, thus conserving power.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the solar-powered block charging device comprises a button.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the button activates the battery indicator (Bessa, paragraph [0073]).
Tsang is silent regarding the material of the solar panel of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach that the solar panel is a monocrystalline solar panel.
To solve the same problem of providing a portable, solar-powered, battery-charging device, Scarmozzino teaches that monocrystalline silicon panels are suitable for use as the solar charging panels in such a device (paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the solar panel of the device of Tsang from monocrystalline silicon, based on the disclosure of Scarmozzino.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the solar panel is a monocrystalline silicon panel.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
In reference to Claim 3, Tsang is silent regarding the details of the charging port 41.
Therefore, he does not teach that the charging port is any of those recited in Claim 3.
To solve the same problem of providing a portable, solar-powered battery charger with a charging port, Bessa teaches that suitable types of charging ports for such a device include a micro-USB charging port and a mini-USB charging port (paragraphs [0050] and [0076]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the charging port 41 of the device of Tsang to be a micro-USB charging port or a mini-USB charging port, based on the disclosure of Bessa.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the charging port is a micro-USB charging port or a mini-USB charging port.
In reference to Claim 4, Tsang is silent regarding the type of light used in the battery indicator; he merely teaches that the indicators 23/25 are lights (column 3, lines 10-15).
Therefore, he does not teach that the battery indicator is comprised of an LED light.
To solve the same problem of providing a portable, solar-powered battery charger comprising a battery status indicator comprising a light, Bessa teaches that LED lights are suitable for use as lights in a battery status indicator (paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the indicator lights of the device of Tsang from LED lights, based on the disclosure of Scarmozzino.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the battery indicator is comprised of an LED light.
In reference to Claim 5, Tsang teaches that the battery indicator displays a charge level of the battery (column 3, lines 10-15).
Claims 7, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang, et al. (U.S. Patent 5,780,993), in view of Bessa, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0284216 A1), Scarmozzino (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0299528 A1), and Bushee, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0314902 A1).
In reference to Claim 7, Tsang teaches a solar-powered charging block device (Fig. 16, with additional details given in Figs. 1-2, column 2, line 59, through column 3, line 30, and column 4, lines 18-39).
The solar-powered charging block device of Tsang comprises a body 16 (Fig. 1, column 2, lines 60-65)
The body of the device of Tsang comprises a recessed area 44 within the body (Figs. 1 and 16, column 3, lines 15-23).
The solar-powered block charging device comprises a solar panel 120 positioned on the body (Fig. 16, column 4, lines 18-39).
The solar-powered block charging device comprises a battery 26 (Figs. 1 and 16, column 4, lines 18-39).
The solar-powered block charging device comprises a female charging port 41 (Fig. 1, column 3, lines 24-29).
The solar-powered block charging device comprises a wall plug 20 comprising a wall plug hinge to attach the wall plug to the body adjacent to the recessed area so that the wall plug can fold into the recessed area when not in use (Fig. 1, column 3, lines 15-23).
The solar-powered block charging device comprises battery indicators 23 and 25 (Fig. 2, column 3, lines 10-15).
Tsang does not teach that the solar-powered charging block device comprises a button.
To solve the same problem of providing a portable, solar-powered battery charger comprising a battery status indicator comprising a light, Bessa teaches a configuration in which a button is used to turn on and turn off battery status indicator lights on such a charger (paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the charging block of Tsang with a button to control whether the indicator lights 23/25 are on or off, as in Bessa, because this modification would allow a user to shut off the indicator lights when not needed, thus conserving power.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the solar-powered block charging device comprises a button.
Tsang is silent regarding the material of the solar panel of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach that the solar panel is a monocrystalline solar panel.
To solve the same problem of providing a portable, solar-powered, battery-charging device, Scarmozzino teaches that monocrystalline silicon panels are suitable for use as the solar charging panels in such a device (paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the solar panel of the device of Tsang from monocrystalline silicon, based on the disclosure of Scarmozzino.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the solar panel is a monocrystalline silicon panel.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Tsang is silent regarding the type of plastic used in the body. Therefore, he does not teach that the body is made of UV resistant plastic.
To solve the same problem of providing a device in which a battery is charged by a solar cell, Bushee teaches that encasing a solar cell and its associated battery assembly with a UV resistant plastic increases the lifetime of the solar cell (paragraph [0072]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the body of the device of modified Tsang from a UV resistant plastic, because Bushee teaches that encasing a solar cell and its associated battery assembly with a UV resistant plastic increases the lifetime of the solar cell (paragraph [0072]).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the body is a UV-resistant plastic body.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
In reference to Claim 9, Tsang is silent regarding the details of the charging port 41.
Therefore, he does not teach that the charging port is any of those recited in Claim 9.
To solve the same problem of providing a portable, solar-powered battery charger with a charging port, Bessa teaches that suitable types of charging ports for such a device include a micro-USB charging port and a mini-USB charging port (paragraphs [0050] and [0076]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the charging port 41 of the device of Tsang to be a micro-USB charging port or a mini-USB charging port, based on the disclosure of Bessa.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 9, wherein the charging port is a micro-USB charging port or a mini-USB charging port.
In reference to Claim 18, Tsang teaches that the wall plug is a male wall plug (Fig. 1).
Tsang does not teach that the wall plug is necessarily a 120V wall plug.
However, in a separate embodiment, Tsang teaches that suitable wall plugs for his invention include US style connectors (Figs. 12 and 15, column 3, line 65, through column 4, line 19).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the wall plug to be a standard US wall plug, because Tsang teaches that this is a suitable configuration for his invention.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 18, wherein the wall plug is a male 120V wall plug.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang, et al. (U.S. Patent 5,780,993), in view of Bessa, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0284216 A1), Scarmozzino (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0299528 A1), and Bushee, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0314902 A1), and further in view of Hsu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0204179 A1).
In reference to Claim 10, modified Tsang does not teach that the charging block comprises a charging cord.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar-powered charger for a cell phone, Hsu teaches a solar-powered charger for a cell phone comprising a charging cord 4 comprising male USB plugs 40/41 on either end (Fig. 4, paragraph [0020]).
Hsu teaches that this cord provides the benefit of connecting to a socket block 7 that contains a plurality of different types of plugs, suitable for charging mobile phones (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of modified Tsang so that the charging port 41 of Tsang is a female USB charging port, and further modify the device of modified Tsang to include the charging cord 4 and socket block 7 of Hsu, in order to achieve the taught benefit of charging many different types of phones with different types of inputs.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the device further comprises a charging cord (corresponding to the cord 4 of Hsu).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein the charging cord is comprised of a first charging port 40 and a second charging port 41 (Fig. 4 of Hsu).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein the first charging port 40 is comprised of a male USB port (Fig. 4 of Hsu).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 13, wherein the second charging port 41 is comprised of a male USB port (Fig. 4 of Hsu).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang, et al. (U.S. Patent 5,780,993), in view of Bessa, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0284216 A1), Scarmozzino (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0299528 A1), and Bushee, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0314902 A1), and further in view of Foster, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0106353 A1).
In reference to Claim 14, modified Tsang does not teach that the battery indicator is comprised of four LED lights. Instead, as described above, he teaches that the battery indicator consists of two lights of unspecified type.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar battery charger comprising an indicator that indicates the status of the battery, Foster teaches a solar battery charger comprising four indicator lights 84 (Fig. 2, paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondar considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included four indicator lights in the device of modified Weed to indicate the battery status, because Foster teaches that four battery indicator lights can be used to indicate the battery status in a solar battery charger.
Modifying the body of the device of modified Tsang so that includes four indicator lights, as in the device of Foster, teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the battery indicator is comprised of a first light, a second light, a third light, and a fourth light.
Modified Tsang in view of Foster does not teach that the lights are LED lights.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar battery charger comprising an indicator that indicates the status of the battery, Bessa teaches LED lights used as battery indicator lights (paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the battery indicator lights of modified Tsang to be LED lights, based on the teachings of Bessa.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached on 33-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721