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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 8/06/2026. Claims 1-21 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to arguments
Applicant amended claims 1,11,17 and 20 and added claim 21 which changes the scope of the claims and as such a new grounds of rejection is issued.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 11 Applicant asserts:
Lu does not disclose each and every feature of independent claim 1.
And further asserts:
In the Office action, the Examiner characterizes the claimed top portion as a top surface of the housing 102 (see the Examiner's annotated figure below), the claimed docking station as the charger 20, and the claimed charger interfaces as the charging positions 202. However, the alleged top portion of Lu does not extend transverse to the alleged bottom portion, which Applicant assumes to be a bottom surface of the housing 102. Rather, the alleged top portion extends parallel to the alleged bottom portion.
In response:
Although the Applicant does not provide a special definition of the “bottom portion” such as a defined plane, axis, etc, the Examiner uses Lu to teach the claimed bottom portion (See Fig. 39-40 element 110) as it is similar to applicants “bottom portion” (Fig. 1, 21 of Applicants drawing) when applicants top portion (22) is placed on a flat surface.
In regards to Applicants remark “the alleged top portion of Lu does not extend transverse to the alleged bottom portion”, the Examiner stated that” Although Lu is silent regarding the top portion extending transverse to the bottom portion …, one of ordinary skill in the art could see that Lu’s bottom portion (110) is transverse to the top portion (117) and the pair of railings (when charger 20 is coupled to the base) in the same way as seen in the applicants bottom portion (fig. 1, 23) is transverse to the top portion (fig. 1, 22) and pair of railings (fig. 1).
It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Lu’s bottom portion (110) transverse to the top portion (117) in order to ensure that the docking station completely connects to its surface and that the mobile charger can be stored in a cabinet or tray properly”.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 11 Applicant asserts:
Also, the charger 20 of Lu is not movable along the alleged top portion in a direction extending transverse to the alleged bottom portion. Rather, the charger 20 is movable in a direction parallel to the alleged bottom portion due to the orientation of the charging part 111.
And further asserts:
Even if the charging device 10 of Lu could be modified to make the alleged top portion extend transverse to the alleged bottom portion, which the Applicant does not concede, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to also modify the charger 20 to move along the modified top portion in a direction extending transverse to the bottom surface of the housing 102. Making such a modification would prevent someone from accessing the charging positions 202 because the side wall 110 would obstruct access to an adjacent charging position 202.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the rejection of claim 11 where the Examiner uses Lu to teach claim language:
a base including a bottom portion (110) and a top portion (top wall 117) having a pair of slots (Fig. 39-40 [00233] the first sliding rails 124), the top portion extending relative to the bottom portion (Fig. 39-40 above);
a docking station (Fig. 4 charger 20) including a pair of railings (Fig. 45 second sliding rails 210) received within the pair of slots of the top portion of the base to slidably couple the docking station to the base such that the docking station is movable along the base ([00235] The second sliding rails 210 (Fig. 45) are matched with the first sliding rails 124 (Fig. 41) to guide the charger 20 to slide into the charging part 111) the pair of railings extending relative to the bottom portion (Fig. 39-40 and 45 above).
Examiner further stated:
“Although Lu is silent regarding the top portion extending transverse to the bottom portion and does not specifically show the pair of railings extending transverse to the bottom portion, one of ordinary skill in the art could see that Lu’s bottom portion (110) is transverse to the top portion (117) and the pair of railings (when charger 20 is coupled to the base) in the same way as seen in the applicants bottom portion (fig. 1, 23) is transverse to the top portion (fig. 1, 22) and pair of railings (fig. 1).
It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Lu’s bottom portion (110) transverse to the top portion (117) in order to ensure that the docking station completely connects to its surface and that the mobile charger can be stored in a cabinet or tray properly.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 11 Applicant asserts:
However, the sliding rails 210 do not extend transverse to the alleged bottom portion. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the charging device 10 such that the sliding rails 210 of the charger 20 of Lu extend transverse to the alleged bottom portion because access to the charging positions 202 would be obstructed.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the rejection of claim 11 where the Examiners states
a docking station (Fig. 4 charger 20) including a pair of railings (Fig. 45 second sliding rails 210).
The Examiner further states” In regard to Lu’s bottom portion (110) being transverse to the pair of railings (Fig. 45 second sliding rails 210), since it would be obvious for the top portion to be tranverse to the bottom portion and the pair of slots (the first sliding rails 124) that connect to the pair of railings are on the top surface, then one of ordinary skill in the art can see that the pair of railings be transverse to the bottom portion when the docking station is connected to the mobile charger.
In regards to applicants remaining remarks:
Applicant remarks have been considered but are moot base on new grounds of rejection.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 and similarly claim 11 recites “the top portion extending transverse to the bottom portion”, “the docking station is movable along the top portion of the base and along a docking direction extending transverse to the bottom portion of the base”
“the plurality of batteries is received in a battery receiving direction extending transverse to the bottom portion of the base” which lacks antecedent basis to the spec.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first --paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the plurality of batteries is received in a battery receiving direction extending transverse to the bottom portion of the base” which is not supported in the disclosure and is therefore new matter.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the plurality of batteries is received in a battery receiving direction extending parallel to the pair of slots and the pair of railings” which is not supported in the disclosure.
The disclosure does not show nor supports the plurality of batteries are received in direction extending transverse to the bottom portion nor show in a direction extending parallel to the pair of slots and the pair of railings.
Based on the drawings, the disclosure is not clear how the plurality of batteries are placed (i.e. clipped/snapped in at an angle or slide in traverse, etc) in the docking station.
Claims 2- 10 are included in this rejection based on its dependence on claim 10.
Appropriate correction 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, 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.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (WO 2022078420).
PNG
media_image1.png
706
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
801
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
644
832
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
450
750
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11, Lu discloses a mobile charger (Fig. 39-40 and 45, a charging device 10) for transporting and charging a plurality of batteries (Fig. 39 and 5 battery pack 40. [00238] …, users can easily take out the charger 20 and the battery pack inserted into the charger 20 as a whole), the mobile charger comprising: a base including a bottom portion (110) and a top portion (top wall 117) having a pair of slots (Fig. 39-40 [00233] the first sliding rails 124), the top portion extending relative to the bottom portion (Fig. 39-40 above);
a docking station (Fig. 4 charger 20) including a pair of railings (Fig. 45 second sliding rails 210) received within the pair of slots of the top portion of the base to slidably couple the docking station to the base such that the docking station is movable along the base ([00235] The second sliding rails 210 (Fig. 45) are matched with the first sliding rails 124 (Fig. 41) to guide the charger 20 to slide into the charging part 111) the pair of railings extending relative to the bottom portion (Fig. 39-40 and 45 above); and a plurality of charger interfaces coupled to the docking station, the plurality of charger interfaces configured to receive the plurality of batteries such that the plurality of batteries is charged by the base ([00238] If the charger 20 with the battery pack inserted is inserted into the charging part 111, the control unit controls the charging device 10 to supply power to the charger 20 through the second connecting interface 1211 (Fig. 41) and the second connecting port 2091 (Fig 45), thereby charging the battery pack inserted into the charger 20).
Although Lu is silent regarding the top portion extending transverse to the bottom portion and does not specifically show the pair of railings extending transverse to the bottom portion, one of ordinary skill in the art could see that Lu’s bottom portion (110) is transverse to the top portion (117) and the pair of railings (when charger 20 is coupled to the base) in the same way as seen in the applicants bottom portion (fig. 1, 23) is transverse to the top portion (fig. 1, 22) and pair of railings (fig. 1).
It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Lu’s bottom portion (110) transverse to the top portion (117) in order to ensure that the docking station completely connects to its surface and that the mobile charger can be stored in a cabinet or tray properly.
In regard to Lu’s bottom portion (110) being transverse to the pair of railings (Fig. 45 second sliding rails 210), since it would be obvious for the top portion to be tranverse to the bottom portion and the pair of slots (the first sliding rails 124) that connect to the pair of railings are on the top surface, then one of ordinary skill in the art can see that the pair of railings be transverse to the bottom portion when the docking station is connected to the mobile charger.
Claims 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (WO 2022078420) in view of Henricksen (US 20140184144).
As to claim 12 , Lu teaches the mobile charger of claim 11.
Lu does not disclose/teach a handle coupled to the docking station, the handle configured to be grasped to move the docking station along the base.
Henricksen teaches a handle coupled to the docking station ([0016] At least one of the panels defines a handle aperture for carrying the coverage docking station).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the docking station of Lu to include a handle coupled to the docking station, in order to carry the docking station ([0016 of Henricksen).
As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that modifying Lu’s docking station with a handle will give one the ability to move the docking station along the base.
As to claim 13 , Lu in view of Henricksen teaches the mobile charger of claim 12.
Lu in view of Henricksen does not disclose/teach wherein the handle is retractable within the docking station.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the handle of Lu in view of Henricksen to wherein the handle is retractable within the docking station in order to prevent damage to the handle when transporting.
As to claim 14, Lu in view of Henricksen teaches the mobile charger of claim 12, wherein the mobile charger further comprises a pair of auxiliary handles disposed on opposite sides of the docking station ([0077] and 1A-1D of Henricksen The first and second side wall portions may further each define a handle aperture for carrying the coverage docking station).
Lu in view of Henricksen does not disclose/teach wherein the handle is a primary handle disposed on a top portion of the docking station.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the docking station of Lu to include wherein the handle is a primary handle disposed on a top portion of the docking station in order to carry the docking station in a vertical position ([0011] of Henricksen), allowing the other hand free for use.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (WO 2022078420) in view of Huan (US 7795837).
As to claim 15 , Lu teaches the mobile charger of claim 11, wherein the docking station is removable from the base ([00238] since the charger 20 is detachably matched with the charging part 111, users can easily take out the charger 20 and the battery pack inserted into the charger 20 as a whole).
Lu does not disclose/teach wherein the docking station can be stored in a modular storage unit configured to charge the plurality of batteries after the removal of the docking station from the base.
Huan teaches battery packs can be stored in a modular storage unit configured to charge the plurality of batteries after the removal (Column 2 lines 55-63 Fig. 1,4C-5 Batteries 50, 52, 54, 56, 59, and 60 in enclosure 21 within a trailer 10 where the batteries are charged).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the docking station of Lu to be stored in a modular storage unit configured to charge the plurality of batteries after the removal of the docking station from the base in order to facilitate the transport of the docking stations.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (WO 2022078420).
As to claim 16, Lu teaches the mobile charger of claim 11.
Lu does not disclose/teach wherein the base is configured to sequentially charge the plurality of batteries received by the plurality of charger interfaces.
Lu teaches wherein the base is configured to sequentially charge the plurality of batteries received by the plurality of charger interfaces ([0186] the control unit 603 allocates charging power/current/voltage to the charging positions 604 inserted by the battery pack one by one according to the number of the charging positions 604 inserted by the battery pack).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the base of Lu to be configured to sequentially charge the plurality of batteries received by the plurality of charger interfaces in order to charge the battery packs in order of priority [0187] .
Claims 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (WO 2022078420) in view of Amano (US 20150326053).
As to claim 17, Lu discloses the mobile charging system comprising: a first mobile charger including a first base (Fig. 39, a charging device 10), a first docking station slidably coupled to the first base such that the first docking station is movable along the first base (Fig. 4 charger 20), and a first plurality of charger interfaces coupled to the first docking station, the first plurality of charger interfaces configured to receive a first plurality of batteries such that the first plurality of batteries is charged by the first base ([00238] If the charger 20 with the battery pack inserted is inserted into the charging part 111, the control unit controls the charging device 10 to supply power to the charger 20 through the second connecting interface 1211 and the second connecting port 2091, thereby charging the battery pack inserted into the charger 20).
Lu does not disclose/teach a second mobile charger including a second base, a second docking station slidably coupled to the second base such that the second docking station is movable along the second base, and a second plurality of charger interfaces coupled to the second docking station, the second plurality of charger interfaces configured to receive a second plurality of batteries such that the second plurality of batteries is charged by the second base,
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile charging system of Lu to include a second mobile charger including a second base, a second docking station slidably coupled to the second base such that the second docking station is movable along the second base, and a second plurality of charger interfaces coupled to the second docking station, the second plurality of charger interfaces configured to receive a second plurality of batteries such that the second plurality of batteries is charged by the second base as it is merely a duplication of parts
Lu does not disclose/teach wherein the first mobile charger and the second mobile charger are movably coupled to each other.
Amano teaches wherein the first mobile charger and the second mobile charger (Fig.1D first body 215a and a second body 215b) are movably coupled to each other ([0025] FIG. 1C shows the docking station 200 in a closed, folded mode. FIG. 1D shows the docking station 200 in an open, flat mode. [0027] Referring to FIGS. 1A and 1B, the docking station 200 may be foldable, wherein the first body 215a may be pivoted from the second body 215b along the hinge 220).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first mobile charger and the second mobile charger of Lu to be movably coupled to each other in order to allow charging of electronic devices in more than one orientation on the mobile charging system ([0005]).
As to claim 20, Lu in view of Wung teaches the mobile charging system of claim 17.
Lu in view of Wung does not disclose/teach wherein the first mobile charger is configured to charge the first plurality of batteries at a first charging rate and the second mobile charger is configured to charge the second plurality of batteries at a second charging rate, and wherein the first charging rate is a faster rate than the second charging rate.
Lu teaches and embodiment wherein the charger is configured to charge the plurality of batteries at a first charging rate that is faster than a second charging rate ([0171] When the temperature of the battery pack 508 is between the second temperature threshold and the third temperature threshold, the control unit 506 controls the charging unit 501 to work at a second power/second current. Wherein, the second power/second current is greater than the first power/first current).
Lu does not explicitly teach the second charging rate is of another mobile charger (i.e. a second mobile charger). However, Lu teaches the first and second charging rates described in [0171] are from the charging device 20 in which Lu teaches multiple charging devices 20. As such the second power is faster than the first power of a second mobile charger).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile charging system of Lu to wherein the first mobile charger is configured to charge the first plurality of batteries at a first charging rate and the second mobile charger is configured to charge the second plurality of batteries at a second charging rate, and wherein the first charging rate is a faster rate than the second charging rate in order to allow the battery packs to be charged with lower power/lower current when the temperature is higher. When the battery pack 508 returns to normal temperature, it is recharged with higher power/high current again ([00171]).
Claim 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (WO 2022078420) in view of Wung (US 6137260) in view of Henricksen (US 20140184144).
As to claim 18, Lu in view of Wung teaches the mobile charging system of claim 17.
Lu in view of Wung does not disclose/teach wherein the first mobile charger further includes a first handle and the second mobile charger further includes a second handle, and wherein the first and second handles are configured to be grasped to respectively move the first and second docking stations along the first and second bases
Henricksen teaches a handle coupled to the docking station ([0016] At least one of the panels defines a handle aperture for carrying the coverage docking station).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the docking station of Lu to include a handle coupled to the docking station, in order carrying the docking station ([0016 of Henricksen).
As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that modifying Lu’s docking station with a handle will give one the ability to move the docking station along the base.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile charging system of Lu to wherein the first mobile charger further includes a first handle and the second mobile charger further includes a second handle, and wherein the first and second handles are configured to be grasped to respectively move the first and second docking stations along the first and second base in order to carry the docking station ([0016 of Henricksen).
As to claim 19, Lu in view of Wung in view of Henricksen teaches the mobile charging system of claim 18.
Lu in view of Wung in view of Henricksen does not disclose/teach wherein the first and second handles are respectively retractable within the first and second docking stations.
Lu in view of Henricksen does not disclose/teach wherein the handle is retractable within the docking station.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and second handles of Lu to be retractable within the first and second docking stations in order to prevent damage to the handle when transporting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 first rejection above.
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to overcome the 112 first rejection above.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, although the prior art discloses a mobile charger for transporting and charging a plurality of batteries, a base including a bottom portion and a top portion extending from the bottom portion, the top portion extending transverse to the bottom portion; a docking station slidably coupled to the top portion of the base such that the docking station is movable along the base, the docking station is movable along the top portion of the base and along a docking direction extending transverse to the bottom portion of the base; and a plurality of charger interfaces coupled to the docking station, the plurality of charger interfaces configured to receive the plurality of batteries such that the plurality of batteries is charged by the base, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the combination of:
“the plurality of batteries is received in a battery receiving direction extending transverse to the bottom portion of the base.”
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim(s) 21, although the prior art discloses a mobile charger for transporting and charging a plurality of batteries, the mobile charger comprising: a base including a bottom portion and a top portion having a pair of slots, the top portion extending transverse to the bottom portion; a docking station including a pair of railings received within the pair of slots of the top portion of the base to slidably couple the docking station to the base such that the docking station is movable along the base, the pair of railings extending transverse to the bottom portion; and a plurality of charger interfaces coupled to the docking station, the plurality of charger interfaces configured to receive the plurality of batteries such that the plurality of batteries is charged by the base, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the combination of:
“wherein the plurality of batteries is received in a battery receiving direction extending parallel to the pair of slots and the pair of railings.”
Dependent claims 2-10 are allowable for the reasons set forth supra with respect to the independent claims from which they depend.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 TYNESE V MCDANIEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6579. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9am to 530pm.
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 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.
/TYNESE V MCDANIEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights