DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shum (US 6,710,577).
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].
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] .
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 5-8, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shum in view of Fuchs et al. (US 2022/01990608), hereinafter Fuchs.
As to claim 5. Shum discloses all of the claim limitations except, 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 Fuchs et al. (US 2022/01990608), hereinafter Fuchs and in view of JPH0717176, hereinafter 176’.
As to claim 9, Shum in combination with 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. 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 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).
Conclusion
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