DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 1, 5-11 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikstrad (U.S. Publication No. 20160359371) in view of Johnson (U.S. Patent No. 9250283) and [Rebstock (U.S. Patent No. 3586962) or Stephany (U.S. Patent No. 6462780)]. Wikstrad teaches a wireless charging battery (16/36, figs 1-2); a wireless battery pack holder (50, fig. 3) operable to contain the wireless charging battery; an injected molded pogo pin holder (70) comprising a plurality of pins (77), wherein: the injected molded pogo pin holder is coupled to the wireless battery pack holder; and the injected molded pogo pin holder is operable to couple to a wireless test module (WTM); and a wireless charging receiver (12/32/34) operable to wirelessly charge the wireless charging battery. The method of making (injection molding) does not impart any specific patentable structure and the structure as claimed is disclosed.
Wikstrad teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for explicitly stating the pins 77 are pogo pins. Johnson teaches in col. 10, lines 60-62 that it was known to use pogo pin contacts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Johnson for the purpose of accounting for differences in tolerances or wear over time for connectors.
Wikstrad teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for using a first set of screws for holding the coupling. While it is the examiner’s position that using screws for holding and/or coupling is notoriously well known, the following is presented to expedite prosecution. Rebstock teaches in figs. 3-4 that it was known to use screws for holding the coupling to a holder. Stephany teaches ¶3, lines 29-33 that it was known to use screws to secure the case. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Rebstock or Stephany for the purpose of securing the coupler.
The applicant should note that the claims do not positively recite that the WTM is part of the claimed invention. The claim merely recite that the pogo pin holder is capable of coupling to a WTM. In the instant case, the pogo pin holder is capable of coupling to a WTM with a mating connector.
Regarding claim 11, Wikstad teaches inserting a wireless charging battery (16/36, figs 1-2); in a wireless battery pack holder 50 operable to contain the wireless charging battery; attaching pin holder 70 comprising a plurality of pins 77 coupled to the wireless battery pack holder, the pin holder operable to be connected to a wireless test module (WTM); and applying a wireless charging receiver to wirelessly charge the wireless charging battery (fig. 2). The method of making (injection molding) does not impart any specific patentable structure and the structure of the steps as claimed is disclosed.
Wikstrad teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for explicitly stating the pins 77 are pogo pins. Johnson teaches in col. 10, lines 60-62 that it was known to use pogo pin contacts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Johnson for the purpose of accounting for differences in tolerances or wear over time for connectors.
Wikstrad teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for using a first set of screws for holding the coupling. While it is the examiner’s position that using screws for holding and/or coupling is notoriously well known, the following is presented to expedite prosecution. Rebstock teaches in figs. 3-4 that it was known to use screws for holding the coupling to a holder. Stephany teaches ¶3, lines 29-33 that it was known to use screws to secure the case. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Rebstock or Stephany for the purpose of securing the coupler.
The applicant should note that the claims do not positively recite that the WTM is part of the claimed invention. The claim merely recite that the pogo pin holder is capable of coupling to a WTM. In the instant case, the pogo pin holder is capable of coupling to a WTM with a mating connector.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the method of making (3D printing) does not impart any specific patentable structure and the structure as claimed is disclosed. Wikstad teaches the wireless battery pack holder is a three-dimensional piece comprising a shape that allows the wireless battery pack holder to slip over an end of the WTM. The holes 77 fit over an end of the counterpart male fittings to connector 72/74).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 16-18, the structure of the battery holder is disclosed. The features of the capabilities of the WTM does not change the structure of the battery holder as disclosed and taught by Wikstad as modified.
Regarding claims 9-10, the connector of Wikstad is cylindrical in shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a mating connector for the WTM that is also cylindrical in shape for the purpose of proper connection.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikstrad (U.S. Publication No. 20160359371) in view of Johnson (U.S. Patent No. 9250283) and [Rebstock (U.S. Patent No. 3586962) or Stephany (U.S. Patent No. 6462780)] and further in view of Miller (U.S. Patent No. 11271427). Wikstrad as modified teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for a magnet attached to the wireless charging receiver operable to latch onto the WTM. Miller teaches a magnet 11 attached to the wireless charging receiver operable to latch onto the WTM. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Miller for the purpose of allowing for hands free connection while charging.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Miller teaches a Qi charging receiver in col. 2, lines 53-54, col. 3, lines 15-17 and col. 4, lines 65-67. Fig. 8 of Miller depicts a magnetic plate compatible with the magnet.
The following rejection of claims 6-7 is presented to expedite prosecution.
Claim(s) 6-7, 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikstrad (U.S. Publication No. 20160359371) in view of Johnson (U.S. Patent No. 9250283) and [Rebstock (U.S. Patent No. 3586962) or Stephany (U.S. Patent No. 6462780)] and further in view of Stepanenko, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 5852796). Wikstad as modified teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the WTM is operable to perform one or more tests to validate an electrical wiring harness according to a plurality of test instructions received from a computer system. Stepanenko, Jr. teaches that it was known to use a WTM operable to perform one or more tests to validate an electrical wiring harness according to a plurality of test instructions received from a computer system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Stepanenko, Jr. for the purpose of quality control of wiring.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the one or more tests are selected from a plurality of tests comprising: a continuity check, a voltage isolation check, a diode polarity check, and a resistance measurement check. See col. 1, lines 32-40.
Regarding claims 19-20, the connector of Wikstad is cylindrical in shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a mating connector for the WTM that is also cylindrical in shape for the purpose of proper connection. It is therefore operable to mate to a wiring harness connector of the electrical wiring harness.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikstrad (U.S. Publication No. 20160359371) in view of Johnson (U.S. Patent No. 9250283) and [Rebstock (U.S. Patent No. 3586962) or Stephany (U.S. Patent No. 6462780)] and Stepanenko, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 5852796), and further in view of Jiang (CN 217212930). Wikstrad as modified teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the WTM is operable to communicate wirelessly with the computer system using WI-FI, Bluetooth, or Zigbee. Jiang teaches that it was known to use a WTM which is operable to communicate wirelessly with the computer system using WI-FI, Bluetooth, or Zigbee. (“Further, the USB-to-wireless module is a protocol conversion module with USB2.0 protocol conversion to ZigBee protocol function.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Jiang for the purpose of using readily established communication protocols.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 12 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miles (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0220059) teaches in ¶99 that it was known to use pogo pin contacts. Bang (KR20220133069) teaches a first battery charged wirelessly and a second battery which is charged from the first battery through pogo pin connections. Seo (KR20160093475) teaches a wireless charging battery and connecting to a device through pogo connectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights