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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Elements
[16, 81] of Fig. 1
[14, 15, 30] of Fig. 2
[11] of Fig. 3
[16] of Fig. 6
17 of Fig. 8
Are not clearly labeled with clear text/symbols to make them clear from the drawings alone. Add labels/text/legend to improve clarity
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
(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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banon (USPN 9917453).
Independent Claim 1, Banon discloses a laptop charger (100, see Figs. 1-8) comprising:
a main body (100) having
a storage groove recessed on the main body (Figs. [3, 6, 8], esp. 302); and
a column extending from a bottom of the storage groove (unmarked column in the middle of 310/318 seen esp. in Figs. [3, 6, 8], marked unofficially as 601 in Fig. 6, see #1 arrow below for marked up Fig. 8);
PNG
media_image1.png
404
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a charging cable (304 and/or 312) configured to be wound around the column for being received in the storage groove and having
two opposite ends (first end and second end; Col 9 L35-60, Col 10 L49 to Col 9 L9), and one of the two opposite ends of the charging cable connected to the main body (while the second end is described to not be shown, it would be inherent that this second end would be connected to the main body to provide power from the wall outlet to the connected laptop device, see at least abstract and Col 9 L15-35, Col 9 L61 to Col 10 L10); and
a connector disposed on the other one of the two opposite ends of the charging cable and configured to be plugged into a charging port of a laptop (first end of each cable, cited sections above, esp. Col 9 L37-42 & Col 10 L55-60);
a limiting board configured to be mounted to the column for limiting the charging cable in the storage groove (element opposite 302 in Fig. 8, arrow #2 in marked up Fig. 8);
a transforming module disposed inside the main body and electrically connected to the charging cable (transformation of AC power to DC power, Col 9 L15-35); and
an input port disposed on the main body, electrically connected to the transforming module, and configured to be electrically connected to a socket via a power supplying cable (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that 202 is capable of/configured to being connected to a socket, described at least in the abstract, via an extension cord/cable, thus, this feature is met;
in a broader sense, this limitation is also met by one of the connection between 202 and the AC-DC converter, the connection between the AC-DC converter and the one or more cables 304/312, or the 2nd of the two cables 304/312 not meeting the first cable; all of these cables [inherent for the 1st two, explicit in the final] are electrically connected to the transforming module, electrically connected to a socket [see at least abstract], and disposed on the main body; where for the 3rd option, the input port is located as the first end; these broader interpretations work as applicant has omitted direct connection and connected between)
Dependent Claim 4, Banon discloses the main body has a connector hole recessed on the bottom of the storage groove, spaced from the column, and being insertable for the connector of the charging cable (Figs. [2, 3, 8, esp. 2], see elements 204, 206, 208, 210).
Dependent Claim 7, Banon discloses the storage groove has a notch recessed on a groove wall of the storage groove and configured for a portion of the charging cable to be received and held in the notch (Figs. [2, 3, 8, esp. 2], see elements 204, 206, 208, 210; see esp. arrow #3 in marked up Figs. 1 & 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
488
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claim 13, Banon discloses the laptop charger comprises at least one output port disposed on the main body and electrically connected to the transforming module (at least 116 meets this requirement, see Col 9 L15-35).
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 2, 5, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banon (USPN 9917453) in view of Uetake et al (USPN 5931245; hereinafter Ueta), as evidenced by GouletPen (“What Are The Pros And Cons Of Snap Caps vs. Screw Caps? - Q&A Slices,” GouletPen, Youtube.com, Published Online Nov 17 2016, Accessed Online Mar 6 2026, Description portion used, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O8Xre57dyc )
Dependent Claim 2, Banon teaches the laptop charger.
Banon is silent to the charger comprises an engaging column extending from the limiting board; and an engaging groove recessed on the engaging column and sheathed on the column for the limiting board to be movably combined with the column.
Ueta teaches the charger comprises an engaging column extending from the limiting board; and an engaging groove recessed on the engaging column and sheathed on the column for the limiting board to be movably combined with the column (Figs. [31-33, esp. 32] has column 74a around which is wrapped charging cable 61 in an analogous fashion for element 74, while element 73 has engaging column and groove 73a which covers 74a as a grooved cap, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand). GouletPen provides evidence that snap-cap covers (which is essentially what Ueta is showing in Fig. 32, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand) take less time and less effort to remove than e.g. a screw-cap cover (or even an integral/welded cover, where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that sometimes being able to access the winding can be beneficial in order to make adjustments/fixes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Banon with Ueta to provide improved ease and speed.
Dependent Claim 5, Banon teaches the main body has a connector hole recessed on the bottom of the storage groove, spaced from the column, and being insertable for the connector of the charging cable (Figs. [2, 3, 8, esp. 2], see elements 204, 206, 208, 210).
Dependent Claim 8, Banon teaches the storage groove has a notch recessed on a groove wall of the storage groove and configured for a portion of the charging cable to be received and held in the notch (Figs. [2, 3, 8, esp. 2], see elements 204, 206, 208, 210; see esp. arrow #3 in marked up Figs. 1 & 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
488
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claim 14, Banon teaches the laptop charger comprises at least one output port disposed on the main body and electrically connected to the transforming module (at least 116 meets this requirement, see Col 9 L15-35).
Claims 3, 6, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banon (USPN 9917453) in view of Walker (USPGPN 20200328603), as evidenced by Nichols (“The Best Tumbler,” Maggie Nichols, TechGearLab.com, Published Online Aug 19 2020 [dated by google search], Accessed Online Mar 6 2026, https://www.techgearlab.com/topics/kitchen/best-tumbler ) and Jordancl (“LPT: If you have a YETI drink container, the slider is magnetic for easy removal and cleaning”, Jordancl, Reddit.com, Published Online 2021, Accessed Online Mar 6 2026, www.reddit.com/r/ LifeProTips/comments/otxe15/lpt_if_you_have_a_yeti_drink_container_the_slider/?rdt=57391 )
Dependent Claim 3, Banon teaches the limiting board is and the column (cited above).
Banon is silent to magnetic attachment/combining between two parts.
Walker teaches magnetic attachment/combining between two parts (¶’s [30, 32, 33, 37, 39, 46, esp. 30, 32, 37], Figs. 1-2C, where cover elements 106 & 111 are analogous in structure to Banon & the present application). Jordancl provides evidence that a magnetic cover increases ease in removing it. Nichols in page 4 of the attachment states that magnetic attachment provides improved ease for removal, along with improved quickness of removal.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify Banon with Walker to provide improved ease and speed.
Dependent Claim 6, Banon teaches the main body has a connector hole recessed on the bottom of the storage groove, spaced from the column, and being insertable for the connector of the charging cable (Figs. [2, 3, 8, esp. 2], see elements 204, 206, 208, 210).
Dependent Claim 9, Banon teaches the storage groove has a notch recessed on a groove wall of the storage groove and configured for a portion of the charging cable to be received and held in the notch (Figs. [2, 3, 8, esp. 2], see elements 204, 206, 208, 210; see esp. arrow #3 in marked up Figs. 1 & 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
488
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claim 15, Banon teaches the laptop charger comprises at least one output port disposed on the main body and electrically connected to the transforming module (at least 116 meets this requirement, see Col 9 L15-35).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banon (USPN 9917453) in view of Vose (USPN 11316354)
Dependent Claim 10, Banon teaches the main body has a top surface and a bottom surface respectively facing two opposite directions;
the storage groove is recessed on the bottom surface of the main body (see Figs. [1-8, esp. [1-3, 8] which demonstrates that the storage groove is on the bottom groove facing the bottom surface [e.g. Fig. 2], where the top surface is shown in Fig. 1).
Banon is silent to the charger comprises a wireless charging module electrically connected to the input port; the wireless charging module is disposed inside the main body and near the top surface of the main body.
Vose teaches the charger comprises a wireless charging module electrically connected to the input port; the wireless charging module is disposed inside the main body and near the top surface of the main body (Figs. [1-5, esp. 2, 3] shows the charging module 26 disposed closer to the top than the more bottom column of 49 & cable 12). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that wireless power transfer is easier for a user to set up as they do not need to ensure connection of cables, can be safer as exposed cables can cause electrocution, and can be longer lasting as connection of exposed cables may be more likely to corrode, while wireless power transfer allows for the contacts to remain insulted from corrosion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Banon with Vose to provide improved ease, longevity of cables, and safety.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banon in view of Vose, further in view of Koren et al (20150042269), as evidenced by Altman et al (USPGPN 20110115713) and Slipy et al (USPGPN 20130286623)
Dependent Claim 11, Banon teaches the laptop charger
Banon is silent to a rod containing groove recessed on the bottom surface of the main body; and a supporting rod connected to the main body and configured to pivot relative to the main body to be contained in the rod containing groove or obliquely protrude from the bottom surface of the main body.
Koren teaches a rod containing groove recessed on the bottom surface of the main body; and a supporting rod connected to the main body and configured to pivot relative to the main body to be contained in the rod containing groove or obliquely protrude from the bottom surface of the main body (¶[95], Figs. [1-3C, 5A-5C] shows kickstand/rod 118 able to be fit into groove seen easiest in Figs. [3A, 3B]). Altman provide evidence that kickstands/rods can provide improved more robust stability (¶[167], esp. when inside a moving object). Slipy provides evidence that kickstands/rods (see e.g. Figs. [1, 3, 4, 6]) provide improved sturdiness, reliability, and dependability (¶’s [07, 48-68])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Banon in view of Vose with Koren to provide improved dependability, reliability, robustness, stability, and sturdiness.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banon in view of Vose & Koren, further in view of Yeh (USPGPN20110241615),as evidenced by Altman & Slipy
Dependent Claim 12, Banon is silent to the wireless charging module has at least one magnetically attracting element configured to magnetically attract an electronic apparatus to be attached to the top surface of the main body.
Yeh teaches the wireless charging module has at least one magnetically attracting element configured to magnetically attract an electronic apparatus to be attached to the top surface of the main body (160, ¶[23], Figs. [1-3]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands (and official notice taken) that magnetic alignment of wireless charging provides improved efficiency (optimized alignment increases efficiency) and reliability (magnetic attraction by magnets provide reliable, repeatable, and dependable connection with other magnets and/or metals which are attracted to magnets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Banon in view of [Koren and Vose] with Yeh to provide improved efficiency and reliability.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banon (USPN 9917453) in view of Li (USPN 10574070)
Dependent Claim 16, Banon is silent to the charger comprises two said output ports respectively being a USB Type-A port and a USB Type-C port.
Li teaches the charger comprises two said output ports respectively being a USB Type-A port and a USB Type-C port (Figs. [1A-11, esp. 1A, 1B] shows USB-A type ports 113A & 111 and USB-C type ports 113B). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having multiple types of power supplies, it provides improved convenience through improved flexibility (Col 13 L55 to Col 14 L12)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Banon with Li to provide improved convenience and flexibility.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banon in view of Ueta, further in view of Li (USPN 10574070), as evidenced by GouletPen
Dependent Claim 17, Banon is silent to the charger comprises two said output ports respectively being a USB Type-A port and a USB Type-C port.
Li teaches the charger comprises two said output ports respectively being a USB Type-A port and a USB Type-C port (Figs. [1A-11, esp. 1A, 1B] shows USB-A type ports 113A & 111 and USB-C type ports 113B). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having multiple types of power supplies, it provides improved convenience through improved flexibility (Col 13 L55 to Col 14 L12)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Banon in view of Ueta with Li to provide improved convenience and flexibility.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banon in view of Walker, further in view of Li (USPN 10574070), as evidenced by Nichols and Jordancl
Dependent Claim 18, Banon is silent to the charger comprises two said output ports respectively being a USB Type-A port and a USB Type-C port.
Li teaches the charger comprises two said output ports respectively being a USB Type-A port and a USB Type-C port (Figs. [1A-11, esp. 1A, 1B] shows USB-A type ports 113A & 111 and USB-C type ports 113B). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having multiple types of power supplies, it provides improved convenience through improved flexibility (Col 13 L55 to Col 14 L12)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Banon in view of Walker with Li to provide improved convenience and flexibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859