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 .
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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the at least two fans" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 3 depends from claim 1, not claim 2.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polat et al. (US 2024/0136836).
Re claim 1:
Fig. 1 of Polat et al. is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This figure clearly shows the essence of claim 1 of the instant invention. A fan is present 140 and is described in the specification:
“[0024] The battery charger 105 may further include a fan 140 disposed beneath the second surface 130. The second surface 130 may face a second direction (or an upward direction) (D2 of FIG. 3), perpendicular to the first direction. The fan 140 may cool the battery pack 110 by providing cooling air in the second direction D2 toward the battery pack 110 when the battery pack 110 is received within the attachment portion 135. The battery charger 105 may further include a plurality of air inlets, for example, but not limited to, a first air inlet 145, a second air inlet 150, and a third air inlet 155. The first air inlet 145 may be disposed proximate the first surface 120 and may be positioned above the attachment portion 135. The first air inlet 145 may receive air from ambient surroundings of the battery charger 105. The second air inlet 150 may be disposed on first and second sides of the battery charger 105 and may further include a patterned surface. The second air inlet 150 may receive air from ambient surroundings of the battery charger 105. The third air inlet 155 may be disposed on a first intermediate portion side 157 below the horizontal section 125. The third air inlet 155 may receive air from ambient surroundings of the battery charger 105. In some examples, the vertical section 115 may be oriented at approximately a right angle relative to the horizontal section 125 as the horizontal section 125 protrudes from the vertical section 115 in the first direction D1. For example, if the first side of the battery charger 105 is oriented on a coordinate plane (e.g., a coordinate plane including x, y, and z-axes), the horizontal section 125 may be located at 0 degrees along the x-axis. The vertical section 115 may be located at approximately 90 degrees, relative to the horizontal section 125, along the y-axis. In some examples, the vertical section 115 may be oriented at a first angle within a range of approximately 75 degrees and approximately 105 degrees relative to the horizontal section 125. In some examples, the horizontal section 125 may be oriented at a second angle between approximately −15 degrees and approximately 15 degrees relative to the vertical section 115.”
The examiner notes that the receiving area could be broadly construed as a receiving shaft. There are at least four walls in the receiving area, although it is admittedly not very deep.
The fan is clearly present in order to control the temperature of the attached battery pack.
Re claim 2: Although Polat et al. does not show two fans, this would be obvious replication of parts.
It would be easy to replicate a second fan having the same function as the first for additional cooling. There could be multiple smaller fans similarly.
Re claim 3: The orientation and precise positioning of the fans is a matter of obvious design choice.
Re claim 4: The receiving area in Polat et al. can be construed as bowl-shaped.
Re claim 10: A range of electrical units may be present in the housing of Polat et al.
Re claim 11: The orientation and precise positioning of the fans is a matter of obvious design choice.
Re claim 12: Although Polat et al. does not show two fans, this would be obvious replication of parts.
It would be easy to replicate a second fan having the same function as the first for additional cooling. There could be multiple smaller fans similarly.
Re claim 14: The depth of the receiving area and the volume of the battery pack involved are a matter of obvious design choice within reason.
Re claim 15: The orientation and precise positioning of the fans is a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polat et al. as applied to claim 1 above in view of Koch et al. (US 2017/0063116).
Koch et al. teaches a fan cooling system for a battery back with a range of air guiding structures including ribs.
In view of Koch et al., it would have been obvious to employ air guiding ribs to achieve more cooling over the battery pack surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 16-17 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.
The prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein at least one side wall extension is associated with the at least one receiving shaft, the at least one side wall extension being formed to at least partially enclose the battery pack received in the at least one receiving shaft” or “further comprising at least one air diverting hood which is associated with the at least one receiving shaft and formed to partially close the at least one receiving shaft” in the context of the independent claim.
Claim 13 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.
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the charging device according to claim 11, further comprising at least one fan associated with the electronic unit, wherein said at least one fan associated with the electronic unit is configured to be controlled independent of the fans associated with the at least two receiving shafts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Michael G. Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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.
/DANIEL A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights