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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Limitations of Claim 7 (as applicant shows 5 and 6 as the same element, it does not accurately demonstrate independent relocation of the two elements)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “the aid of a feedback value” twice. The first instance lacks antecedent basis. Emend to “an aid of a feedback value” or “aid of a feedback value”.
Claim 8 recites “the aid of the eye height” and “the aid of the gripping height”. These limitations lack antecedent basis. Emend to “an aid of the eye height” and “an aid of the gripping height”, or “aid of the eye height” and “aid of the gripping height”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al (KR 102125290 B1)
Independent Claim 1, Hong discloses a method for operating a charging station (140, Figs. [1-3]) designed and provided for charging a traction battery of a motor vehicle with electric energy (abstract, ¶’s [03, 13, 25]), wherein the charging station comprises a display device for displaying information (130, ¶’s [22, 23, 26, 28, 32, 34, 44, 50, 53]) and an operating device for receiving a manual input of a user (120, ¶’s [26, 30, 32, 34, 43, 44, 46, 50, 52, 53]),
the method comprising:
relocating the display device and the operating device at least temporarily in relation to a housing of the charging station (see Fig. 3).
Independent Claim 10, Hong discloses a charging station (140, Figs. [1-3]) for charging a traction battery of a motor vehicle with electric energy (abstract, ¶’s [03, 13, 25]),
the charging station comprising:
a display device for displaying information (130, ¶’s [22, 23, 26, 28, 32, 34, 44, 50, 53, esp. 34]); and
an operating device for receiving a manual input of a user (120, ¶’s [26, 30, 32, 34, 43, 44, 46, 50, 52, 53, esp. 30]),
wherein the charging station is configured to relocate the display device and the operating device at least temporarily in relation to a housing of the charging station (Fig. 3).
Dependent Claim 2, Hong discloses the relocating is done for a height adjustment of the display device and/or the operating device (Fig. 3).
Dependent Claim 3, HOng discloses a target position of the display device and/or a target position of the operating device are determined and an actual position is adjusted to the respective target position by the relocating (Fig. 3, ¶’s [14, 41, 48]).
Dependent Claim 4, Hong discloses the target position is determined with the aid of a feedback value of a control element (180 & 170, ¶’s [10, 12, 13, 35, 36, 43, 44]) of the charging station and/or with the aid of a feedback value of a sensor device of the charging station (sensor 170, camera 20, ¶’s [12, 13, 33, 36, 38, 41-43] are sensors of controller/charging station).
Dependent Claim 5, Hong discloses the sensor device comprises a proximity sensor and/or an optical sensor (camera is known as an optical sensor).
Dependent Claim 8, Hong discloses the feedback value of the sensor device is used to determine an eye height of the user and the target position of the display device is determined with the aid of the eye height, and/or the feedback value of the sensor device is used to determine a gripping height of the user and the target position of the operating device is determined with the aid of the gripping height (¶[48] describes setting it so the user can grasp/grip and see with their naked eye, i.e. grip and eye heights)
Dependent Claim 9, Hong discloses the control element is relocated at least temporarily in relation to the housing of the charging station (¶’s [28-33] describes that the sensor 170 of controller [170, 180] moves up and down with 120 & 130).
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.
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 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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (KR 102125290 B1) in view of Sano et al (USPGPN 20070176891)
Dependent Claim 6, Hong fails to explicitly teach the target position of the display device and/or the target position of the operating device are set to a respective starting position after a certain lapse of time.
Sano teaches the target position of the display device and/or the target position of the operating device are set to a respective starting position after a certain lapse of time (¶’s [19-23, esp. 21, 23], Figs. [3, 5, 8, 9, 13A, 13B] describes that after a preset period of time, it returns to the starting position of the monitor/display-device). Sano, Hong, and the present application are analogous in that they describe the movement of a display device and relate to vehicles (¶[03]). Sano teaches this return serves to enhance the usability (¶’s [21, 23]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong with Sano to provide improved usability.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (KR 102125290 B1) in view of King et al (USPGPN 20170196352)
Dependent Claim 7, Hong is silent to the display device and the operating device are relocated at least temporarily independently of each other.
King teaches the display device (12) and the operating device (14) are relocated at least temporarily independently of each other (¶’s [68, 85], where moving column 30 analogously moves both 12 and 14, while the height of keyboard can be moved relative to 30 and the height of the monitor can be moved relative to 30, see Figs. [1-12, esp. 9, 10, while ¶[67] describes a horizontal positioning of the keyboard, where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the horizontal positioning of King’s keyboard/operating-device is easier on the wrists than the vertical device of Hong, and the improved adaptability can improve user satisfaction [official notice taken]). Sano, Hong, and the present application are analogous in that they describe the movement of a display device and an operating device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong with King to provide improved satisfaction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights