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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 & 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication Number 2021/0267098 A1 to Wippler in view of US Patent Publication Number 2021/0345520 A1 to Los.
A) As per Claim 1, Wippler teaches an electronic device cooling system of a vehicle (Wippler: Figure 1), the electronic device cooling system comprising:
a receptacle (Wippler: Figure 3, Item 302) fluidly coupled to a dedicated climate zone, the receptacle comprising at least one sensor (Wippler: Paragraph 0031; Item 206 present in all embodiments); and
an electronic control unit communicatively coupled to an electronic device and the at least one sensor, wherein, upon receiving a signal from the at least one sensor that a temperature of the electronic device exceeds a first threshold temperature (Wippler: Figure 5, Item 504), the electronic control unit:
transmits a notification to the electronic device relating to the temperature (Wippler: Paragraph 0038); and
directs cooling air, via the dedicated climate zone, to the receptacle (Wippler: Figure 5, Item 508).
Wippler does not explicitly teach that that the control unit determines that the electronic device is placed in the receptacle and distinguishes the electronic device from an object other than the electronic device.
However, Los teaches the control unit determines that the electronic device is placed in the receptacle and distinguishes the electronic device from an object other than the electronic device (Los: Paragraph 0099-0100).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wippler by having the control unit distinguish the item in the charger, as taught by Los, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wippler with these aforementioned teachings of Los with the motivation of preserving energy if a foreign object is placed in the wireless charger.
B) As per Claim 3, Wippler in view of Los teaches that the electronic control unit further transmits the notification via a vehicle head unit (Wippler: Paragraph 0038).
C) As per Claim 4, Wippler in view of Los teaches that the electronic control unit further transmits the notification via one or more speakers (Wippler: Paragraph 0038).
D) As per Claim 5, Wippler in view of Los teaches that the electronic control unit controls at least one fan to decrease air-flow to the receptacle when an electronic device temperature is below a second threshold temperature, wherein the second threshold temperature is less than the first threshold temperature (Wippler: Figure 5, Item 514 & 518).
E) As per Claim 6, Wippler in view of Los teaches that the receptacle comprises a wireless charging pad (Wippler: Figure 3, Item 108) and at least one fan (Wippler: Figure 5, Item 508) configured to cool the wireless charging pad.
F) As per Claim 7, Wippler in view of Los teaches that the at least one sensor comprises a temperature sensor (Wippler: Paragraph 0031; Item 206 present in all embodiments).
G) As per Claim 8, Wippler in view of Los teaches that the at least one sensor comprises an optical sensor (Los: end of Paragraph 0100).
H) As per Claim 10, Wippler in view of Los teaches that the receptacle is integrated into a vehicle dashboard (Wippler: best shown in Figure 3).
I) As per Claim 11, Wippler in view of Los teaches that the electronic control unit is capable of distinguishing whether the electronic device is placed in the receptacle or keys are placed in the receptacle (Los: Paragraph 0099-0100).
J) As per Claim 12, Wippler in view of Los teaches that the electronic control unit distinguishes between the electronic device placed in the receptacle and the object other than the electronic device placed in the receptacle based on dimensions of the electronic device or dimensions of the object other than the electronic device (Los: end of Paragraph 0100; optical sensor senses size and other optical qualities to differentiate devices.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wippler in view of Los as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2024/0326556 A1 to Salter.
A) As per Claim 2, Wippler in view of Los teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the notification further provides instructions to a user to insert the electronic device into the receptacle.
However, Salter teaches a notification further provides instructions to a user to insert the electronic device into the receptacle (Salter: Paragraph 0048).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wippler in view of Los by providing instructions to the user, as taught by Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wippler in view of Los with these aforementioned teachings of Salter with the motivation of ensuring that the device is placed properly within the receptacle.
Claim(s) 9 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wippler in view of Los as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Number 11,329,497 B2 to Wippler, hereafter referred to as Wippler[497].
A) As per Claim 9, Wippler in view of Los teaches all the limitations except that the at least one sensor comprises a force sensor.
However, Wippler[497] teaches at least one sensor comprises a force sensor (Wippler[497]: Claim 6).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wippler in view of Los by adding a force sensor, as taught by Wippler[497], with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wippler in view of Los with these aforementioned teachings of Wippler[497] with the motivation of further being able to sense if the device is placed within the receptacle or not.
B) As per Claim 13, Wippler in view of Los teaches the electronic control unit distinguishes between the electronic device placed in the receptacle and the object other than the electronic device placed in the receptacle (Los: Paragraphs 0099-0100).
Wippler in view of Los does not sensing a weight of the electronic device or a weight of the object other than the electronic device.
However, Wippler[497] teaches a force sensor that would sense the weight (Wippler[497]: Claim 6) and, in combination, distinguish based on the weight of the devices.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wippler in view of Los by adding a force sensor, as taught by Wippler[497], with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wippler in view of Los with these aforementioned teachings of Wippler[497] with the motivation of further being able to sense if the device is placed within the receptacle or not.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights