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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler et al. (US 2005/0024021, cited by applicant) in view of Taga et al. (US 2015/0137758).
Regarding claim 1, Zeiler teaches a multi-slot charger (10, fig. 1) which placeable in a vertical, horizontal or wall-mounted manner (fig. 1), comprising: a housing (22) and a handle assembly (78) comprising auxiliary handles provided on two sides of the housing and a lifting handle (a handle section having ergonomic grip 98, 84 and 85) provided on a top of the housing ([0127]-[0130]), wherein when the multi-slot charge is placeable in a vertical and/or horizontal manner, the auxiliary handles are configured to support the multi-slot charger (figs. 55, 63, 71; [0165]-[0171]), and when the multi-slot charger is placeable in a wall-mounted manner the housing is directly connectable to a vertical surface ([0172]).
Zeiler teaches the multi-slot can be connected to a vertical wall via fasteners, magnets or bonding ([0172]) but silent to a plurality of locking slots or a wall-mounting bracket as claimed.
However, Taga teaches multi-slot battery charger (fig. 1) is placeable in a wall-mounted manner, a plurality of locking slots is provided on the housing such that the housing is directly connectable in a vertical surface through the plurality of locking slots (35 and 36), or a wall-mounting bracket is installed on the housing such that the housing is able to be mountable to the vertical surface through the wall-mounting bracket (figs. 11 and 25-27 and [0196]-[0205]).
In view of Taga’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention to Zeiler by incorporating the teaching as taught by Taga since it is just a matter of utilizing an alternative and well-known fastener to place the multi-slot charger on a wall.
Regarding claims 2-8, the limitations of the claims are not given patentable weight because they further define the limitation of “wall-mounting bracket” which was not considered based on the condition of “or” as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Zeiler as modified by Taga teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Zeiler and Taga further teach wherein the multi-slot charger further includes a plurality of slot indicator lights, and the plurality of charging slot indicator lights being disposed on the top of the housing and located below the lifting handle of the handle assembly (Zeiler: [0168]. Taga: [0182]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Zeiler as modified by Taga teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the limitations as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zeiler and Taga by incorporating the ratio as claimed since it is just a matter of design options for selecting the ratio of the handles for the charger and its weight to the battery pack.
Regarding claim 13, Zeiler as modified by Taga teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Zeiler and Taga further teach wherein the housing is provided with a plurality of charging slots, and each charging slot includes a charging interface and a power supply terminal to match a battery pack (Zeiler: fig. 21. Taga: fig. 1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Zeiler as modified by Taga teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the limitations as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zeiler and Taga by incorporating the angle and spacing distance as claimed since it is just a matter of design options for selecting the range of the angle and of the space distance.
Regarding claim 16, Zeiler as modified by Taga teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Taga further teaches wherein the housing includes a first case (21) and a second case (22), the first case and the second case are fixedly connected, the charging slot is located on the first case, and an inner wall of the second case is provided with horizontal and vertical grid-shaped reinforcing ribs (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 17, Zeiler as modified by Taga teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Taga further teaches wherein a bottom surface of the multi-slot charger has a slope structure, and a direction of the slope structure is inclined downwardly relative to a direction pointing from the first case to the second case (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Zeiler as modified by Taga teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for an angle and spacing distance as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zeiler and Taga by incorporating the angle and spacing distance as claimed since it is just a matter of design options for selecting the angle and the space distance of the slope and the ground of the multi-slot charger.
Regarding claim 19, Zeiler as modified by Taga teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Zeiler further teaches wherein the lifting handle (the handle having ergonomic grip 98) includes a main part (98 and 84) and flat structures at two ends (85), the main part extends toward the housing to form two connecting posts (84), and each connecting post extends into an interior of the housing (22) and is fixedly connected to the housing through a reinforcing plate, and the flat structures (85) are configured to be fixedly connected to the auxiliary handles (78) on two sides of the housing (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler as modified by Taga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sergyeyenko et al. (US 2019/0067955).
Regarding claim 9, Zeiler as modified by Taga teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for a switch as claimed.
However, Sergyeyenko teaches battery pack charger (100, fig. 1) comprising a switch, and the switch is configured to control and switch a charging mode of the battery pack charger (fig. 14 and [0104]).
In view of Sergyeyenko’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zeiler and Taga by incorporating the teaching as taught by Sergyeyenko so as to switch or change charging mode between each battery (see Sergyeyenko: [0104]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler as modified by Taga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silha et al. (US 2021/0167430).
Regarding claim 20, Zeiler as modified by Taga teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the housing is provided with a heat dissipation structure as claimed.
However, Silha teaches a charger includes a housing, wherein the housing is provided with a heat dissipation structure as claimed ([0067] and [0099]).
In view of Silha’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zeiler and Taga by incorporating the teaching as taught by Silha so as to prevent overheating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Dong et al. (US 2019/0140457); Lee et al. (US 2018/0198292); Bhuiyan et al. (US 2021/0313814); Hennesy et al. (US 2020/0259343); Byrne et al. (US 2017/0264120) and Hurn et al. (US 4,716,352) are cited because they are related to multi-slot battery charger.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights