DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 2021-06-29 and 2022-03-09. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of either application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed. Applicant is reminded of their duty to disclose information that is material to the patentability of the instant application. Please review MPEP 609 and 37 CFR §1.56.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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.
5. Claims 2-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 2 and 4-5 recite “the charging apparatus” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis because “charging apparatuses” are claimed in Claim 1 and so it is unclear which charging apparatus is further limited in Claims 2 and 4-5. In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “the charging apparatuses comprise”. Claim 3 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim 8 recites “the power supply main body” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis because there is no previously recited power supply main body. In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “the power supply body”. Claims 9-10 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 9 recites “the battery pack” and “the integrated package” but these limitations lack antecedent basis because there is no previously recited power battery pack or integrated package. In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitations will be interpreted as “a battery pack” and “an integrated package”.
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 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.
6. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fry US PG Publication 2015/0171632.
Regarding Claim 1, Fry discloses an energy storage device comprising an energy storage power supply which comprises a power supply body (battery) 14 and an output portion (see annotated figure below) being in circuit connection (charging circuits) to the power supply body 14 (paras 0003-0004, 0050-0052) to output electrical energy stored in the power supply body to the outside, and charging apparatuses (battery packs) 86, 90 which are detachably connected to the output portion so as to be charged by the energy storage power supply 14, the charging apparatuses are used to be connected to an electrical device to supply power to an electrical device (para 0037), wherein at least one of the charging apparatuses is replaced after being depleted of power with at least another of the charging apparatuses from the energy storage power supply so as to supply power to the electrical device, such that power is continuously supplied to the electrical device by the charging apparatus (e.g. the two battery packs can be the same, para 0037) (see entire disclosure and especially all Figs and paras 0003-0004, 0032-0042, 0045-0047, 0050-0052). The Office notes that in Claim 1, “the charging apparatuses are used to be connected to an electrical device to supply power to the electrical device, wherein at least one of the charging apparatuses is replaced after being depleted of power with at least another of the charging apparatuses from the energy storage power supply so as to supply power to the electrical device, such that power is continuously supplied to the electrical device by the charging apparatus” are intended uses of which the prior art is capable, although this function is not specifically recited by the prior art. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Fry discloses in at least Figs 4-5 and paras 0034-0035 wherein the charging apparatuses 86/90 comprises at least an integrated package (the portion of 54 where 86/90 are held) which is integrally connected to the output portion via battery pack port 70 so as to be charged by the energy storage power supply since the charging apparatus plugs directly into the port which is an integral part of 54 (the instant disclosure says that the integrated package is integrated, in that it is charged without a wired connection, para 0112 of the published application).
Regarding Claim 3, Fry teaches that the integrated package detachably accommodates at least two battery packs 86/90 which are connected to the output portion through the integrated package to be charged, wherein the battery packs are detached from the integrated package via ports 70 /72 to supply power to electrical devices (see rejection of Claim 1 and Fig 5 and relevant paragraphs).
Regarding Claim 4, Fry teaches that the charging apparatus comprises at least a battery pack 86 which is directly connected to the output portion at port 70 (output portion includes this part) so as to be charged by the energy storage power supply 14.
Regarding Claim 5, Fry discloses wherein the output portion further comprises at least a charging connection module (charging circuits) which is in circuit connection to the body of the energy storage power supply 14 to output current and the charging apparatus 86/90 is connected cordlessly (via plug-in) to the charging connection module so as to obtain current from the power supply body 14 to be charged (see entire disclosure and at least paras 0049-0063).
Regarding Claim 7, Fry teaches that after the charging apparatus is charged by the energy storage power supply, it is capable of cordless circuit connection to an electrical device to supply power to the electrical device since Fry’s invention is directed to charging power tool battery packs since e.g. Fry includes “slide-on” 18V battery pack (para 0036) which the skilled artisan understands couples with a power tool in a slide-on manner (cordless). Further, since this battery pack/charging apparatus is capable of charging the battery 14 while in this slide-on connection (para 0063, 86/90 can provide charge to battery 14) and so the skilled artisan would understand this capability to carry out the claimed function. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Regarding Claim 8, Fry discloses an energy storage power supply comprising power receiving portion (power supply unit) 16, a power supply body (battery) 14 and an output portion (see annotated figure above) wherein the power supply body 14 is in circuit connection to the power receiving portion 16 (para 0050) to obtain and store electrical energy through the power receiving portion and the output portion is in circuit connection to the power supply body 14 to output the electrical energy stored by the power supply body 14 (paras 0003-0004, 0050-0052) and further comprises a housing which comprises a housing body 54 and an accommodating portion which is disposed in the housing body wherein the accommodating portion is used to accommodate charging apparatuses (battery packs) 86, 90 which are in circuit connection to the output portion and charged (see entire disclosure and especially all Figs and paras 0003-0004, 0032-0042, 0045-0047, 0050-0052).
Regarding Claim 9, Fry discloses wherein the accommodating portion comprises a first accommodating portion and a second accommodating portion which are both arranged in the housing body and wherein the first accommodating portion is used to accommodate a battery pack of the charging apparatus and the second accommodating portion is used to accommodate an integrated package (the portion of 54 where 86/90 are held) which is integrally connected to the output portion via battery pack port 70 so as to be charged by the energy storage power supply since the charging apparatus plugs directly into the port which is an integral part of 54 (the instant disclosure says that the integrated package is integrated, in that it is charged without a wired connection, para 0112 of the published application).
PNG
media_image2.png
715
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Fry discloses wherein the output portion further comprises at least an integrated output module (power output panel) 18 and a charging connection module (charging circuits) which are respectively in circuit connection to the body of the energy storage power supply 14 wherein the integrated output module is used to connect to electrical devices and supply power to the electrical devices and the charging connection module (charging circuits) is used to connect to charging apparatuses and charge the charging apparatuses (see entire disclosure and at least paras 0049-0063).
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 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 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:
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.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fry US PG Publication 2015/0171632
Regarding Claim xx, Fry discloses the energy storage device of Claim 1, the rejection of which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Fry further discloses wherein the charging apparatuses 86/90 each have input portions including input power terminals and data terminals that communicate with respective ports 70/72 and with devices powered by the charging apparatus and so are charging apparatus input communication terminals (paras 0039-0040) and discloses wherein the charging connection module 18 includes DC output power terminals 194/198 (Fig. 13, para 0050) and further discloses the use of input/output interfaces (para 0031) and the charging apparatuses are connected with the energy storage power supply cordlessly, as previously stated. Fry does not specifically disclose wherein the charging connection module comprises a DC interfacing output unit, and the DC interfacing output unit comprises at least a first DC interfacing output power terminal, at least a second DC interfacing output power terminal and at least a DC interfacing output communication terminal; the first charging apparatus input power terminal and the second first charging apparatus input power terminal are correspondingly connected to the first DC interfacing output power terminal and the second DC interfacing output power terminal to form a circuit loop, so that the charging apparatus and the energy storage power supply are connected cordlessly, and the charging apparatus input communication terminal and the DC interfacing output communication terminal are communicatively connected, so that the charging apparatus and the energy storage power supply communicate with each other. However, since Fry teaches that the system/device uses a number of interfaces and terminals related to DC input/output, communication, circuit loops (Fig. 13), i.e. discloses the structure needed to form the claimed device, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the device of Fry such that the charging connection module comprises a DC interfacing output unit, and the DC interfacing output unit comprises at least a first DC interfacing output power terminal, at least a second DC interfacing output power terminal and at least a DC interfacing output communication terminal; the first charging apparatus input power terminal and the second first charging apparatus input power terminal are correspondingly connected to the first DC interfacing output power terminal and the second DC interfacing output power terminal to form a circuit loop, so that the charging apparatus and the energy storage power supply are connected cordlessly, and the charging apparatus input communication terminal and the DC interfacing output communication terminal are communicatively connected, so that the charging apparatus and the energy storage power supply communicate with each other because this would enable further known functions and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. He CN112952966 discloses an energy storage device comprising an energy storage power supply (energy storage battery) which comprises a power supply body (power supply casing) 101 and an output portion (see annotated figure below) being in circuit connection to the power supply body (at least via first contact in receiving slot, paras 0006-0007) to output electrical energy stored in the power supply body to the outside) and charging apparatuses (power banks) 20 which are detachably connection to the output portion so as to be charged by the energy source power supply, the charging apparatuses 20 are used to be connected to an electrical device to supply power to the electrical device, wherein at least one of the charging apparatuses is replaced after being depleted of power with at least another of the charging apparatuses 20 from the energy storage power supply so as to supply power to the electrical device, such that power is continuously supplied to the electrical device by the charging apparatus (see entire disclosure and especially all Figs and paras 0005-0013 and 0073-0086). The Office notes that in Claim 1, “the charging apparatuses are used to be connected to an electrical device to supply power to the electrical device, wherein at least one of the charging apparatuses is replaced after being depleted of power with at least another of the charging apparatuses from the energy storage power supply so as to supply power to the electrical device, such that power is continuously supplied to the electrical device by the charging apparatus” are intended uses of which the prior art is capable, although this function is not specifically recited by the prior art. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights