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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of election of species in the reply filed on 2/5/25 is acknowledged. Therefore, Examiner will exam elected specie (Fig 6-8) and associated claims.
The above statement was copied from the previous office action and also the result of the interview summary filed on 3/5/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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.
Claims 1, 32 and dependent claims 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In Claim 1, the limitations “A magnetic docking platform integrally formed with a mobile electronic device and enclosed by a rear external surface of a mobile electronic device, the platform comprising: one or more magnets magnetically attaching a docking accessory to the mobile electronic device” are unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings appear to describe/show the claimed features. Examiner request, 3/5/25 Applicant clearly determine the claimed limitations on the elected figures (with labels) in the next response. Applicant, however, failed to provide the clarification and copied paste many paragraphs for the SPEC which mentioned multiple different alternated embodiments. Again, Examiner request applicant to provide evidence on the elected fig 6-8 to show the claimed limitations. The fig 6-8 only show the docking platform itself as mentioned in the DECISION ON PETITION Under 37 CFR 1.181.
In Claim 32, the limitations “wireless communication subassembly for wirelessly communicating with the docking accessory, wherein the magnetic docking platform is integrally formed with the mobile electronic device and enclosed by a rear external surface of a mobile electronic device” are unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings appear to describe/show the claimed features. Examiner request, 3/5/25 Applicant clearly determine the claimed limitations on the elected figures (with labels) in the next response. Applicant, however, failed to provide the clarification and copied paste many paragraphs for the SPEC which mentioned multiple different alternated embodiments. Again, Examiner request applicant to provide evidence on the elected fig 6-8 to show the claimed limitations. The fig 6-8 only show the docking platform itself as mentioned in the DECISION ON PETITION Under 37 CFR 1.181.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see above discussion/rejections), and/or discussed in the above claim objections 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.
Examiner’s Note:
The following are the important office actions and communications history in this case:
On 6/22/24, Examiner discussed with Applicant’ attorney and provided amendments for allowance based on claims 1, 13. Applicant’s attorney stated Applicant declined the amendments.
On 8/8/24, Examiner filed restriction requirement.
On 10/1/24, Applicant’s attorney contacted Examiner and agreed to merge fig 6-8 and elected the embodiment shown in Fig 6-8 without traverse. Applicant’s attorney also agreed to discuss with Applicant regarding the mutually exclusive between claims 1 and claim 13.
2/5/25: Applicant filed a new set of claims which are completely different from the original presentation. Applicant also elected fig 6-8 without traverse as a second time.
2/5/25: Examiner interview with Applicant’s attorney and explain filing a new set of claims which are completely different from the original presentation is completely unacceptable. In addition, Examiner also determined that the scope of new set of claims is unclear and no support found in fig 6-8. Applicant’s attorney agreed and stated he will discuss with Applicant and file a new set of claims which should be followed by the original presentation based on either claim 1 or claim 13.
3/5/25: Applicant’s attorney failed to follow up this case and Examiner need to file a non-final office action due to the clock of this case. The office action clearly indicated the scope of the claims is unclear.
The following is the conclusion for this case:
Examiner invite Applicant to review the efforts in the past two years for this case. It’s obviously NOT “no any burden” as Applicant’s Attorney argued in the Remark.
Applicant filed about 10 applicants in this patent application family. Examiner require Applicant do not use an applicant as a PLACEHOLDER to switch the scopes of claims between the applications.
Examiner will exam this case based on the ONLY embodiment shown in fig 6-8 and request Applicant to clearly show the support and explain the issue on fig 6-8 as discussed in the DECISION ON PETITION Under 37 CFR 1.181.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 20-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothbaum (US 20110192857) in view of Stoner (US 20120112553).
Regarding claim 20, Rothbaum disclosed A magnetic docking platform integrally formed with a mobile electronic device and enclosed by a rear external surface of a mobile electronic device, the platform (abstract, see also fig 1-65) comprising: one or more magnets magnetically attaching a docking accessory to the mobile electronic device (at least fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239-248]-[253-255]; Examiner consider the whole structure is the mobile device and the rear portion with the accessory attachment is the platform; the rear portion with platform also electronically connect to the electronic device via 5802 in fig 58).
Examiner’s note:
Integral: relating to, or belonging as a part of the whole; https://www.dictionary.com/browse/integral
Enclosed: surround; https://www.dictionary.com/browse/enclose
The structure shown in the above cited art is integrally formed with a mobile device (they also have electronic or information connection as a whole). Also, the portion which Examiner consider as a platform is also enclosed by the rear external surface of a mobile device (at least surrounded by external surface of sidewalls of a mobile device).
Most importantly, the above terms are just in the preamble.
Rothbaum lacks teaching: a power subassembly to wirelessly receive power from the docking accessory to charge a battery of the mobile electronic device; and a wireless communication subassembly for wirelessly communicating with the docking accessory.
Stoner teaches an electronic device comprising: a power subassembly to wirelessly receive power from one device to charge another electronic device (at least fig 1-14; paragraph [50]-[56]); and a wireless communication subassembly for wirelessly communicating with the docking accessory (at least fig 1, fig 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature (the wireless power transfer circuits on both sides of the electronic devices to transfer power) and modify to previous discussed structure (modify to the primary art’s interface between the battery and the mobile device and replace the wired power transfer with the wireless power transfer; and the wireless communication for the information transfer; see fig 9-10) so as to further provide advance power transfer and the information communication for the modified structure and/or enhance the power transfer even the contact is poor.
Regarding claim 32, Rothbaum disclosed A magnetic docking platform, the platform (abstract, see also fig 1-65) comprising: a magnet magnetically attaching a docking accessory to a mobile electronic device (at least fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; Examiner consider the whole structure is the mobile device and the rear portion with the accessory attachment is the platform); wherein the magnetic docking platform is integrally formed with the mobile electronic device and enclosed by a rear external surface of a mobile electronic device (at least fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239-248]-[253-255]).
Examiner’s note:
Integral: relating to, or belonging as a part of the whole; https://www.dictionary.com/browse/integral
Enclosed: surround; https://www.dictionary.com/browse/enclose
The structure shown in the above cited art is integrally formed with a mobile device (they also have electronic or information connection as a whole). Also, the portion which Examiner consider as a platform is also enclosed by the rear external surface of a mobile device (at least surrounded by external surface of sidewalls of a mobile device).
Rothbaum lacks teaching: a charging coil to wirelessly receive power from the docking accessory to charge a battery of the mobile electronic device; and a wireless communication subassembly for wirelessly communicating with the docking accessory.
Stoner teaches an electronic device comprising: a power subassembly to wirelessly receive power from one device to charge another electronic device (at least fig 1-14; paragraph [50]-[56]); and a wireless communication subassembly for wirelessly communicating with the docking accessory (at least fig 1, fig 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature (the wireless power transfer circuits on both sides of the electronic device to transfer power) and modify to previous discussed structure (modify to the primary art’s interface between the battery and the mobile device and replace the wired power transfer with the wireless power transfer; and the wireless communication for the information transfer; see fig 9-10) so as to further provide advance power transfer and the information communication for the modified structure and/or enhance the power transfer even the contact is poor.
Regarding claim 21, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the power subassembly receives wireless power from a battery accessory to charge the battery of the mobile electronic device (see Rothbaum’s fig 57-63; see also the battery discussion in paragraph [239]-[255]; see also above modification with Stoner’s wireless power and data transfer between battery and device).
With regard claim 22, the primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the power subassembly receives wireless power from a charging station to charge the battery of the mobile electronic device.
Stone further teaches: the power subassembly receives wireless power from a charging station (at least fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include this feature (using power station to charge or transfer the power on the other side of the device; which is the primary art’s mobile device battery) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to the previous discussed structure) so as to further provide more power options for the modified structure.
Regarding claim 23, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the power subassembly comprises a charging coil and a wireless charging interface (see Stoner’s fig 1-14; paragraph [50]-[56]; see Rothbaum’s fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also above modification with Stoner’s wireless power and data transfer).
Regarding claim 24, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the wireless charging interface receives an electrical charging signal from the wireless charging coil (see Stoner’s fig 1-14; paragraph [50]-[56]; see Rothbaum’s fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also above modification with Stoner’s wireless power and data transfer).
Regarding claims 25, 36, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the wireless communication subassembly receives accessory information from the docking accessory (see Stoner’s fig 1-14; paragraph [50]-[56]; see Rothbaum’s fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also above modification with Stoner’s wireless power and data transfer). Examiner’s note: Examiner consider the data transfer between Stoner’s wireless data transfer is the transformation for accessory information from the docking accessory.
Regarding claim 26, 37, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the accessory information comprises one or more of an accessory type, an accessory configuration, and a level of interoperability (see Stoner’s Fig 9-11, Rothbaum’s fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also above modification with Stoner’s wireless power and data transfer).
Regarding claims 27, 38, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the accessory information is received by the wireless communication subassembly using a message passing protocol (see see Stoner’s Fig 9-11, Rothbaum’s fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also above modification with Stoner’s wireless power and data transfer).
Regarding claims 28, 39, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the accessory information relates to a function to be performed by the mobile electronic device (see see Stoner’s Fig 9-11, , Rothbaum’s fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also above modification with Stoner’s wireless power and data transfer).
Regarding claims 29, 40, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the function is specific to a type of the docking accessory (see Stoner’s Fig 9-11, Rothbaum’s fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also above modification with Stoner’s wireless power and data transfer).
Regarding claims 30, 41, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the accessory information relates to authorizing the docking accessory, linking the docking accessory, and/or initializing the docking accessory (see see Stoner’s Fig 9-11, Rothbaum’s fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also above modification with Stoner’s wireless power and data transfer).
Regarding claims 31, 42, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the platform further comprises an aligning element for aligning the docking accessory (see Rothbaum’s fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also above modification with Stoner’s wireless power and data transfer). Examiner consider, at least the surface to accept the accessory is the aligning element for aligning the docking accessory; and/or the magnet portion is also the aligning element.
Regarding claim 33, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the charging coil receives wireless power from a battery accessory to charge the battery of the mobile electronic device (see Stoner’s fig 1-14; paragraph [50]-[56]; see Rothbaum’s fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also above modification with Stoner’s wireless power and data transfer).
With regard claim 34, the primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the charging coil receives wireless power from a charging station to charge the battery of the mobile electronic device.
Stone further teaches: the charging coil receives wireless power from a charging station to charge the battery of the mobile electronic device (at least fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include this feature (using power station to charge or transfer the power on the other side of the device; which is the primary art’s mobile device battery) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to the previous discussed structure) so as to further provide more power options for the modified structure.
Regarding claim 35, modified Rothbaum further disclosed a wireless charging interface that receives an electrical charging signal from the wireless charging coil (see Stoner’s fig 1-14; paragraph [50]-[56]; see Rothbaum’s fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also above modification with Stoner’s wireless power and data transfer).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 The Office Action indicates that claim 1 (which should be claim 20) and claim 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. See Office Action at 2. The Office Action appears to ask for information regarding support for the following limitations: "magnetic docking platform integrally formed with a mobile electronic device and enclosed by a rear external surface of a mobile electronic device, the platform comprising: one or more magnets magnetically attaching a docking accessory to the mobile electronic device." In response, Applicant provides the following explanation of where support can be found in the specification and drawings. In the interest of efficiency, the following citations are meant to be exemplary, not exhaustive, and additional support can be found throughout the specification and figures), particularly because the figures of the elected embodiment (FIGs. 6-8) are expressly described as depicting "one or more components comprising the magnetic docking platform of FIGs. TA, 1B, 2, and 3." Specification, [0096]” (pages 6-16).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that
Examiner request Applicant to search and find how many “alternate embodiments” in JUST the paragraphs that Applicant copied from SPEC to this Remark.
As discussed in the DECISION ON PETITION Under 37 CFR 1.181 and above rejection, Examiner will only exam the embodiment shown in fig 6-8.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “Rothbaum As the Office Action acknowledges, the primary reference, Rothbaum, does not teach or suggest two of the three elements of claim 27. In particular, it does not teach or suggest the particularly-recited "power subassembly" or "wireless communication subassembly." Moreover, despite the Office Action relying on Rothbaum for allegedly disclosing a "docking platform integrally formed with a mobile electronic device and enclosed by a rear external surface of a mobile electronic device," the Office Action does not establish how or why Rothbaum discloses this feature either. The only indication provided in the Office Action is that the "Examiner consider the whole structure is the mobile device and the rear portion with the accessory attachment is the platform." See Office Action at 5. But that statement undermines, rather than supports, the rejection because it confirms that the alleged "platform" of Rothbaum is not "integrally formed with a mobile electronic device." Instead, the cited figures in Rothbaum (FIGs. 57-63) clearly show that the alleged "one or more magnets"” (pages 16-17).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
Examiner request Applicant to read the arguments one more time and see if Applicant’s Fig 6-8 shows the limitations that Applicant argued in the Remark.
In fact, Examiner’s cited arts can read Applicant’s claims better than Applicant’s drawing.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “Motivation to Combine In addition to the missing limitations described above, the Office Action does not establish a motivation to combine the teachings of Rothbaum and Stoner. Instead, the Office Action proposes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature (the wireless power transfer circuits on both sides of the electronic device to transfer power) and modify to previous discussed structure (modify to the primary art's interface between the battery and the mobile device and replace the wired power transfer with the wireless power transfer; and the wireless communication for the information transfer; see fig 9-10) so as to further provide advance power transfer and the information communication for the modified structure." Office Action at 5.” (pages 18 to the end).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Stoner teaches an electronic device comprising: a power subassembly to wirelessly receive power from one device to charge another electronic device (at least fig 1-14; paragraph [50]-[56]); and a wireless communication subassembly for wirelessly communicating with the docking accessory (at least fig 1, fig 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature (the wireless power transfer circuits on both sides of the electronic device to transfer power) and modify to previous discussed structure (modify to the primary art’s interface between the battery and the mobile device and replace the wired power transfer with the wireless power transfer; and the wireless communication for the information transfer; see fig 9-10) so as to further provide advance power transfer and the information communication for the modified structure and/or enhance the power transfer even the contact is poor.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “But this proposition is the product of improper hindsight, using the current specification as a roadmap for the proposed modification. Nowhere in either Rothbaum or Stoner is there any hint suggesting to "modify to the primary art's interface between the battery and the mobile device and replace the wired power transfer with the wireless power transfer; and the wireless communication for the information transfer; see fig 9-10) so as to further provide advance power transfer and the information communication for the modified structure." Office Action at 5. In fact, Rothbaum teaches away from any such modification in that it expressly relies on electrical contacts embedded in the case for power transfer.” (pages 19 to the end).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Stoner teaches an electronic device comprising: a power subassembly to wirelessly receive power from one device to charge another electronic device (at least fig 1-14; paragraph [50]-[56]); and a wireless communication subassembly for wirelessly communicating with the docking accessory (at least fig 1, fig 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature (the wireless power transfer circuits on both sides of the electronic device to transfer power) and modify to previous discussed structure (modify to the primary art’s interface between the battery and the mobile device and replace the wired power transfer with the wireless power transfer; and the wireless communication for the information transfer; see fig 9-10) so as to further provide advance power transfer and the information communication for the modified structure and/or enhance the power transfer even the contact is poor.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached on 571.270.5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights