DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The use of the term TASER®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (throughout the specification). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Due to the use of the trademark TASER®, the title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 contains the trademark/trade name TASER®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a product and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
For examination purposes, the phrase TASER®, will be interpreted as an electronic weapon.
Regarding claims 11, 12, 16 & 17, the phrase "such as" (see claims 11 & 16, line 2) renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 12 and 17 depend from claims 11 and 16, respectively, and inherit the same deficiency.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, these claims recite “a power source” in line 2. It is noted that “a power source” has already been recited in claim 1, line 4 and claim 13, line 5. It is unclear if the power source in claims 11 and 16 is intended to refer back to the power source recited in claims 1 and 16, respectively, or if claims 11 and 16 are introducing a second power source.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, these claims recite “the power source” in line 2. Given the lack of clarity noted in claims 11 and 16, it is unclear which power source is being referred to.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the device" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to change, “the device” to --the charging dock device--.
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, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladvocat Cintra (US 11,568,233 B2, hereinafter Cintra) in view of Dimino, Jr et al (US 10,496,958 B2).
Regarding claim 1: Cintra teaches: A charging dock (150) device that provides a user with a specialized storage stand and charging dock for multiple recording devices (110, 120, 130, 140), the charging dock device comprising: a base component (see 150 in Fig. 1); and a power source (connectors 152, 154, 156 & 158, bus 160, connector 162, cord 164 and/or backup battery, see Fig. 1 and col. 6, lines 4-22); wherein the base component retains a plurality of recording devices (110, 120, 130, 140, see Fig. 1) for charging; and further wherein the base component comprises the power source (see Fig. 1 and col. 6, lines 4-22), which allows the plurality of recording devices to be charged simultaneously in the base component (see col. 3, line 54 – col. 6, line 22).
Cintra does not teach the charging dock being for electronic weapons.
Dimino, Jr et al teaches a charging dock (130, Fig. 1) for electronic weapons (CEW 110) and inserting the electronic weapon (CEW 110) into the dock (130) for recharging batteries of the electronic weapon and downloading data stored (log information) in the electronic weapon (see col. 5, line 22 – col. 6, line 18).
In view of Dimino, Jr et al’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the charging dock of Cintra to dock electronic weapons, since Dimino, Jr et al teaches that electronic weapons are also recording devices which need to be recharged and have their log information downloaded (see col. 1, line 41 – col. 2, line 6).
Regarding claim 2, Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al teaches: The charging dock device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of electronic weapons comprise an electroshock weapon (conducted electrical weapon (CEW) 110 of Dimino, Jr et al is considered a TASER® or an electroshock weapon).
Claim(s) 3 and 6-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladvocat Cintra (US 11,568,233 B2, hereinafter Cintra) in view of Dimino, Jr et al (US 10,496,958 B2) and further in view of Malackowski (US 6,184,655 B1).
Regarding claim 3: The teachings of Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al as applied to claim 2, have been discussed above. Cintra shows the dock (150) in block diagram form in Fig. 1 and Dimino, Jr et al also shows the dock (130) in block diagram form in Fig. 1. Thus, Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al do not show a specific structure for the dock.
Thus, Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al do not specifically teach (claim 2) wherein the base component is generally rectangular in shape and comprises a top surface, a bottom surface, opposing front and back sides, and opposing right and left sides.
Malackowski teaches (Figs. 1 & 2) a charging dock (20) including a base component (24), wherein the base component is generally rectangular in shape and comprises a top surface, a bottom surface, opposing front and back sides, and opposing right and left sides (see the structure shown in Fig. 1).
In view of Malackowski’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the charging dock, as taught by Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al, to include wherein the base component is generally rectangular in shape and comprises a top surface, a bottom surface, opposing front and back sides, and opposing right and left sides, since Malackowski shows that this is a known shape for a docking station to simultaneously recharge multiple devices. Thus, the choice of a rectangular shape represents selecting from a known option.
Regarding claim 6, Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski teach: The charging dock device of claim 3, wherein the base component comprises a plurality of shallow apertures (see “bays” of Cintra and sockets 28 of Malackowski) that are sized and shaped to retain a handle of each of the plurality of electronic weapons for charging (see col. 4, lines 12-28 of Cintra; col. 5, lines 22-33 of Dimino, Jr et al and sockets 28, Fig. 1 of Malackowski).
Regarding claim 7, Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski teach: The charging dock device of claim 6, wherein the handle of each of the plurality of electronic weapons is nested within the plurality of shallow apertures, to retain the plurality of electronic weapons on the base component (see col. 4, lines 12-28 of Cintra; col. 5, lines 22-33 of Dimino, Jr et al and sockets 28, Fig. 1 of Malackowski).
Regarding claim 8, Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski teach: The charging dock device of claim 7, wherein the plurality of electronic weapons are stored within the base component and their mating connectors (for example, the device connectors that mate with connectors 152, 154, 156, 158 of Cintra) are hidden within the base component (see col. 4, lines 12-28 of Cintra; col. 5, lines 22-33 of Dimino, Jr et al and sockets 28, Fig. 1 of Malackowski).
Regarding claim 9, Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski teach: The charging dock device of claim 8, wherein the base component comprises a charging connector component (for example, connectors 152, 154, 156, 158 of Cintra) which contacts the mating connectors of the plurality of electronic weapons to charge them (see col. 4, lines 12-28 of Cintra; col. 5, lines 22-33 of Dimino, Jr et al and sockets 28, Fig. 1 of Malackowski).
Regarding claim 10, Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski teach: The charging dock device of claim 9, wherein the charging connector component is a 10-port USB strip (for example, connectors 152, 154, 156, 158 of Cintra may be USB connectors on a strip (bus) 160, see col. 5, lines 4-9; Cintra also teaches that the number of bays may number from two to twelve or two to twenty-four per dock, see col. 4, lines 29-42) to accommodate all of the plurality of electronic weapons simultaneously.
Regarding claim 11, Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski teach: The charging dock device of claim 10, wherein the charging connector component is in electrical communication with a power source, such as an electrical plug (see Fig. 1 of Cintra) that is plugged into a wall outlet (see col. 6, lines 4-22, of Cintra).
Regarding claim 12, Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski teach: The charging dock device of claim 11, wherein the power source is a battery (see col. 6, lines 14-17, of Cintra).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected as being unpatentable over Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski using the same rationale applied to the corresponding claim limitations as recited in claims 1-3 and 6-9.
Regarding claim 14, the teachings of Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski, as applied to claim 13, have been discussed above.
Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski does not specifically teach the charging dock further comprising a plurality of indicia.
However, official notice is taken that it was old and well known to those of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include indicia (for example, product branding, user instructions or electrical specifications) on a charging dock.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include, with the teachings of Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski, a plurality of indicia, in order to provide product branding, user instructions or electrical specifications on the charging dock.
Regarding claim 15, The charging dock device of claim 13, wherein the charging connector component is a 10-port USB strip (for example, connectors 152, 154, 156, 158 of Cintra may be USB connectors on a strip (bus) 160, see col. 5, lines 4-9; Cintra also teaches that the number of bays may number from two to twelve or two to twenty-four per dock, see col. 4, lines 29-42) to accommodate all of the plurality of electronic weapons simultaneously.
Regarding claim 16, The charging dock device of claim 15, wherein the charging connector component is in electrical communication with a power source, such as an electrical plug (see Fig. 1 of Cintra) that is plugged into a wall outlet (see col. 6, lines 4-22, of Cintra).
Regarding claim 17, The charging dock device of claim 16, wherein the power source is a battery (see col. 6, lines 14-17, of Cintra).
Regarding claim 18, The charging dock device of claim 13, wherein the plurality of electronic weapons comprise an electroshock weapon (conducted electrical weapon (CEW) 110, of Diminio, Jr et al, is considered a TASER® or an electroshock weapon).
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladvocat Cintra (US 11,568,233 B2, hereinafter Cintra) in view of Dimino, Jr et al (US 10,496,958 B2), Malackowski (US 6,184,655 B1), and further in view of Webb et al (US 2005/0007070 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 19: The teachings of Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski, as applied to claims 3 and 13, have been discussed above. Cintra also states that other shapes of the bays and other manners of mounting the devices on the dock are possible (see col. 4, lines 12-28).
Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski does not specifically teach (claim 4) wherein the base component comprises at least one support coupled to an inner wall for supporting the plurality of electronic weapons in an upright position; (claim 5) wherein the at least one support and the inner wall create a slot for retaining one of the plurality of electronic weapons in an upright position; and (claim 19) wherein the base component comprises at least one support coupled to an inner wall which create a slot for retaining one of the plurality of electronic weapons in an upright position.
Webb et al teaches (see Figs. 1-6 and 18) a charging dock (device 20) for electronic devices, where the charging dock includes a base component (housing 22) that comprises at least one support (separator panels 44, see Fig. 18) coupled to an inner wall (26) which create slots for retaining one or a plurality of electronic devices in an upright position (see the abstract, paras. 0012 and 0037-0039).
In view of the teachings of Webb et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include, with the charging dock of Cintra as modified by Dimino, Jr et al and Malackowski, (claim 4) wherein the base component comprises at least one support coupled to an inner wall for supporting the plurality of electronic weapons in an upright position; (claim 5) wherein the at least one support and the inner wall create a slot for retaining one of the plurality of electronic weapons in an upright position; and (claim 19) wherein the base component comprises at least one support coupled to an inner wall which create a slot for retaining one of the plurality of electronic weapons in an upright position, since this would provide an alternate manner of mounting the electronic weapons and allow adjustment of the size of the slots to accommodate different electronic weapons or devices (see para. 0038 of Webb et al).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb et al (US 2005/0007070 A1) in view of Dimino, Jr et al (US 10,496,958 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Webb et al teaches (see Figs. 1-6, 18 and 19): A method of storing and charging multiple electronic devices simultaneously (see the abstract and para. 0081), the method comprising the following steps: providing a charging dock device (20) comprising a base component (housing 22) with multiple slots (slots created by attaching separator panels 44) for holding electronic devices and their respective charging cords (for example, power adapter 76, cable 78, see para. 0081); inserting a wall receptacle plug on the device (the plug at the end of power cord 72) into a wall outlet to power the device; positioning multiple electronic devices within the multiple slots (for example, one electronic device for each slot, see para. 0081); plugging in the electronic devices via their respective charging cords (see para. 0012, which describes routing cables to the electronic devices and para. 0081, which describes connecting power jack 74 of cable 78 to electronic devices); and charging and storing the multiple electronic devices in the device (see the abstract, paras. 0012, 0037-0039 and 0081-0082).
Webb et al does not specifically teach that the electronic devices include electronic weapons, and connecting a charging cord to a USB port on the device.
Dimino, Jr et al teaches a charging dock (130, Fig. 1) for electronic weapons (CEW 110) and placing the electronic weapon (CEW 110) into the dock (130) for recharging batteries of the electronic weapon (see col. 5, line 22 – col. 6, line 18). Dimino, Jr et al also teaches that the electronic weapon (CEW 110) may use a USB circuit (see col. 11, lines 9-13).
In view of the teachings of Dimino, Jr et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include, with the teachings of Webb et al, one of the electronic devices being an electronic weapon and connecting a charging cord to a USB port on the device, since Dimino, Jr et al teaches that electronic weapons are also electronic devices which need to be recharged and may utilize a USB circuitry/cord (see col. 1, line 41 – col. 2, line 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the additional references cited on the attached PTO-892, which are related to conductive energy weapons and/or charging docks for various devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared Fureman whose telephone number is (571)272-2391. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 571-272-2312. 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.
/JARED FUREMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859