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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because scanned or photocopied of photographs in black and white are very difficult to decipher the details. Technical drawings are requested. 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.
Specification
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. For example, referencing “a separate and removable dock” would be more descriptive.
The disclosure should be carefully reviewed to ensure that any and all grammatical, idiomatic, and spelling or other minor errors are corrected.
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.
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean document KR102694220B1 (see machine translation).
Re claim 1, the document discloses a charger 101 having, inter alia, a housing 101; a plug 150 for connecting the charger to battery 101; the housing 101 having brackets for storing a charging cable 130/140 connected to the plug 150; and a dock 180 removably secured to the housing, the dock securing the plug 150 (see figure 15). Bolded text is not found in Korean document.
The document shows the dock 180 having cable wound thereto. It does not show the main housing 101 having brackets for winding the cable. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have moved the charging cable to the housing 101 for the purpose of easing the stress on the separate dock 180 and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 2-6, the document does not show the brackets as claimed. Official notice is taken of the fact that having a number of brackets on the dock forming a loop for a user to grasp would ease the transport of the dock. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a number of brackets as claimed to enhance the transportation of the dock.
Re claims 7 and 8, the document is silent on having vent holes. Official notice is taken of the fact that having venting holes would allow for a cooler charging experience. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included vent holes to release hot air from the charging to thereby increase the charging efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Drew Dunn and he can be reached at 571.272.2312. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087
Prosecution Insights