DETAILED ACTION
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shum (US 6,710,577) in view of Sage (US 5,633,574)
As to claim 1, Shum discloses in figure 1 (shown below);
PNG
media_image1.png
382
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a charger [see figure below] assembly comprising:
a housing including [see figure above]:
a first surface [figure above; the first surface];
a second surface [see figure above; the second surface] that is not parallel with the first surface;
a first recess in the first surface [the area where the battery or the device installed to be charged];
a second recess in the second surface [see figure above]; and
a first opening [opening connecting the first recess and the second recess [the first recess and the second recess are separated by the opening ( 18); see figure above] ;
a first group of electrical contacts [electrical contacts 47 and 50 are located inside the recesses] in the first recess; and a second group of electrical contacts in the second recess, wherein each of the first recess and the second recess is configured to receive a battery pack [battery is received in the recess to be charged [see Abstract].
Shum discloses all of the claim limitations except, and the first opening is configured such that a finger of a user can enter the first opening to remove the battery pack from either the first recess or the second recess when the battery pack is received by the first recess or the second recess.
Saga discloses in figure 10, the first opening is configured such that a finger of a user can enter the first opening to remove the battery pack from either the first recess or the second recess when the battery pack is received by the first recess or the second recess [noted that figure 10 shows an opening to use fingers to remove the battery for the charger/holder].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to create an opening in the apparatus of Shum as taught by Saga in order to quickly and conveniently remove the battery.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to add opening for removing of batteries in Shum’s apparatus in order to easily and safely remove the battery, , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant’s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. plurality of openings, battery charger, and etc.,) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As to claim 2 , Shum discloses in figure 1, a charging status indicator [charging indicator lamps (70 and 72); see Col. 4, lines 36-50].
As to claim 3, Shum discloses in figures 1-5, a first printed circuit board (PCB) electrically connected to the first group of electrical contacts; and a second PCB electrically connected to the second group of electrical contacts [electrical charging contacts]..
As to claim 4, Shum discloses in figures 1-5, wherein the first PCB and the second PCB have identical shapes [noted that each charging slots have plurality of electrical contacts to charge the batteries] .
Claims 5-8, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shum in view of Saga, in view of Fuchs et al. (US 2022/01990608), hereinafter Fuchs.
As to claim 5. neither Shum nor Saga discloses, wherein the housing further includes: a third recess in the first surface; and a fourth recess in the second surface.
Fuchs discloses in figure 1, wherein the housing further includes: a third recess in the first surface; and a fourth recess in the second surface [Fuchs discloses battery packs slots and rechargeable battery packs ].
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Shum’s apparatus and add additional charging slots as taught by Fuchs in order to charge plurality of battery packs simultaneously.
As to claim 6, Fuchs discloses in figure 1, wherein the housing further includes a second opening that connects the third recess and the fourth recess [Fuchs discloses plurality of recess and each recess has openings].
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Shum’s apparatus and add openings in each slots as taught by Fuchs in order to easily remover rechargeable battery packs.
As to claim 7, Fuchs discloses in figure 1, a detachable wall mount bracket [see ¶0005, ¶0005, ¶0056].
As to claim 8, neither Shum nor Fuchs discloses, wherein a first angle between the first surface of the housing and the detachable wall mount bracket is equal to a second angle between the second surface of the housing and the detachable wall mount bracket.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use different orientation of the charging surfaces or slots to easily mount the rechargeable batteries, would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant' s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. voltage detector, voltage gradient calculator, battery life judging means etc.,) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As to claim 11, Shum discloses in figures 1-5, a detachable base plate, wherein the detachable base plate is perpendicular to the first surface and the second surface [noted that the base plate of Shum is perpendicular to the charging slots].
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made to use removable base in Shum’s apparatus in order to easily maintain the charging circuit, since it has been held that forming in one piece an a r t i c l e which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art . Howard v.De.troit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim 13, Fuchs discloses in figure 1, a first battery pack in the first recess; and a second battery pack in the second recess [battery packs (2) are disposed in the plurality of recess].
As to claim 14, Fuchs discloses in figures 1, wherein both the first battery pack and the second battery pack are removable from the charger assembly using the first opening.
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shum in view of Saga, in view of Fuchs et al. (US 2022/01990608), hereinafter Fuchs and in view of JPH0717176, hereinafter 176’.
As to claim 9, Shum in combination with Saga and Fuchs discloses all of the claim limitations except, shoulder screws or nobs provided on the detachable wall mount bracket ; and keyholes provided in the housing, wherein the keyholes receive the shoulder screws or nobs when the charger assembly is attached to the detachable wall mount bracket.
176’ discloses in figures 1-16, shoulder screws or nobs provided on the detachable wall mount bracket [wall plate brackets (element 3) see figure 3] ; and keyholes [holes 2] provided in the housing, wherein the keyholes receive the shoulder screws [screws 5] or nobs when the charger assembly is attached to the detachable wall mount bracket. [see page 1]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use wall mounting brackets in Shum’s apparatus as taught by 176’ in order to secure the charging device on the wall and secure it from falling off.
As to claim 10, 176’ discloses in figures 1-15, a tab provided on the wall mount bracket; and a latch [fastener 6] provided on or in the housing, wherein the latch engages the tab when the charger assembly is attached to the detachable wall mount bracket [see figures 1 and 2].
It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant' s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. housing, latch, mount and etc.,) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As to clam 12, Shum in combination with Fuchs discloses all of the claim limitations except, first surface and second surface, wherein an angle between the first surface and the second surface is changeable.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use different orientation for the charging surfaces of Shum in order to adjust and modify the charging surface size to fit appropriate charging space/area, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 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.
In response to applicant's argument that the first opening is configured such that a finger of a user can enter the first opening to remove a battery pack from either the first recess or the second recess when a battery pack is received by the first recess or the second recess, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to add opening for removing of batteries in Shum’s apparatus in order to easily and safely remove the battery, , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant’s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. housing, plurality of device/battery, openings, and etc.,) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
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 SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights