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 Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of U.S. provisional patent application 63/391,460 filed July 22, 2022 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/2/2023 was filed before the filing of a first office action on the merits. As such, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
FIG. 1 is objected to, because label “110” is listed twice. Is this intended?
FIG. 5 is objected to, for failure to present a stand-alone drawing that aids the reader in understanding the invention. Please describe each step in the flowchart, in addition to the labels. Please cut and paste descriptive terms from the specification. No new matter may be added.
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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 recites two male charging ports. Is this intended? If not, please consider “a male charging port, wherein the male charging port . . .” Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0126724 to O’Connor et al.
With respect to Claim 1, O’Conner teaches an electric vehicle portable charger device comprising: a battery positioned within a body (“housing”); a charging cord (26); a female charging port in electrical communication with the battery (240); and a male charging port in electrical communication with the battery via the charging cord (24). (FIG. 1)
O’Conner teaches an equivalent system operable to perform the method recited in the instant invention, but does not use the same verbiage; however, the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitations verbatim. For example, O’Conner teaches a male charging port comprising a handle in FIG. 1, and a human machine interface comprising a button ([0019];[0032]) for activating the charging system; together they teach a handle comprising a button for activating the charging system. The structures are a simple substitute for the recited limitation. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify O’Conner to include the specified verbiage and recited limitation.
With respect to Claim 2, O’Conner teaches wherein the male charging port is positioned on a charging handle. (FIG. 1 (handle shown in FIG. 1 but not labeled); [0016]; [0019])
With respect to Claim 3, O’Conner teaches wherein the charging handle is comprised of a button. ([0019], human machine interface comprising buttons, cell phone; [0032])
With respect to Claim 4, O’Conner teaches wherein the female charging port is positioned on the body. (FIG. 1)
With respect to Claim 5, O’Conner teaches the system being portable (title). It would be obvious to position a handle on the body. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (“Use of known technique, and applying same to achieve predictable results).
With respect to Claim 6, O’Conner teaches wherein the male charging port is comprised of an AC Type 1 charging port, an AC Type 2 charging port, a DC CHAdeMo charging port, or a DC CCS charging port. ([0017])
With respect to Claim 7, O’Conner teaches wherein the female charging port is comprised of an AC Type 1 charging port, an AC Type 2 charging port, a DC CHAdeMo charging port, or a DC CCS charging port. ([0045])
With respect to Claim 8, O’Conner teaches an electric vehicle portable charger device comprising: a battery positioned within a body; a battery indicator ([0020]); a fastener ([0032]); a charging cord; a female charging port in electrical communication with the battery; a male charging port; and a male charging port in electrical communication with the battery via the charging cord. (FIG. 1)
With respect to Claim 9, O’Conner teaches a fastener to latch the male port 24 to the connector. ([0045]). It would have been obvious to try that fastener as a suction cup. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (“choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”).
With respect to Claim 10, O’Conner teaches wherein the fastener is positioned on the body. (FIG. 2 shows an assembled housing/battery bank, including plural fasteners at the ends of the longitudinal members)
With respect to Claim 11, O’Conner teaches wherein the battery indicator is comprised of a display screen. ([0019])
With respect to Claim 12, O’Conner teaches wherein the display screen is comprised of an LED screen. ([0019])
With respect to Claim 13, O’Conner teaches wherein the battery indicator displays a power amount of the battery. ([0020])
With respect to Claim 14, O’Conner teaches wherein the male charging port is positioned on a charging handle. (FIG. 1)
With respect to Claim 15, O’Conner teaches wherein the charging handle is comprised of a button. ([0019])
With respect to Claim 16, O’Conner teaches wherein the male charging port is comprised of an AC Type 1 charging port, an AC Type 2 charging port, a DC CHAdeMo charging port, or a DC CCS charging port. ([0017])
With respect to Claim 17, O’Conner teaches wherein the female charging port is comprised of an AC Type 1 charging port, an AC Type 2 charging port, a DC CHAdeMo charging port, or a DC CCS charging port. ([0045])
With respect to Claim 18, O’Connert teaches a method of using an electric vehicle portable charger device, the method comprising the steps of: providing an electric vehicle portable charger device comprised of a female charging port, a battery, and a charging handle with a male charging port (FIG. 1); charging the battery by inserting a male electric vehicle charger into the female charging port ([0045]; attaching a body of the device to an electric vehicle via a fastener positioned on the body (FIG. 1;[0029]); and inserting the male charging port of the charging handle into a charging port of an electric vehicle and pressing a button on the charging handle to charge the electric vehicle via power stored in the battery ([0025];[0019];[0032]).
O’Conner teaches an equivalent system operable to perform the method recited in the instant invention, but does not use the same verbiage; however, the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitations verbatim. For example, O’Conner teaches a male charging port comprising a handle in FIG. 1, and a human machine interface comprising a button ([0019];[0032]) for activating the charging system; together they teach a handle comprising a button for activating the charging system. The structures are a simple substitute for the recited limitation. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify O’Conner to include the specified verbiage and recited limitation.
With respect to Claim 19, O’Conner teaches wherein the male charging port is comprised of an AC Type 1 charging port, an AC Type 2 charging port, a DC CHAdeMo charging port, or a DC CCS charging port. ([0017])
With respect to Claim 20, O’Conner teaches wherein the female charging port is comprised of an AC Type 1 charging port, an AC Type 2 charging port, a DC CHAdeMo charging port, or a DC CCS charging port. ([0045])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3696