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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “the amount charging” in line 12-13 is suggested to change to - - the amount of charging - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saboury et al. (US 2026/0031632).
Regarding claim 1, Saboury teaches a battery pack charger (claim 15, line 1), comprising: a housing (claim 15, line 2); a first receptacle incorporated in the housing for receiving a battery pack (claim 15, lines 3-4); a second receptacle incorporated in the housing for receiving a battery pack (claim 15, lines 5-6); a first AC to DC power supply housed within the housing (claim 15, line 7); a second AC to DC power supply housed within the housing (claim 15, lines 8-9); a processing unit housed within the housing, the processing unit electrically coupled to the first power supply to enable the processing unit to configure the first power supply to provide an amount of charging current and electrically coupled to the second power supply to configure the second power supply to provide an amount of charging current (claim 15, lines 10-16); and a bridge assembly circuit housed within the housing, the bridge assembly circuit electrically coupled to the first power supply and the second power supply to receive the amount charging current from the first power supply and the amount of charging current from the second power supply and electrically coupled to the processing unit to enable the processing unit to configure the bridge assembly circuit to direct all of or less than all of the amount of charging current from the first power supply to the first receptacle and all of or less than all of the amount of charging current from the second power supply to the first receptacle and all of or less than all of the amount of charging current from the first power supply to the second receptacle and all of or less than all of the amount of charging current from the second power supply to the second receptacle (claim 15, lines 17-33).
Regarding claim 2, Saboury further teaches wherein the bridge assembly circuit directs all of the amount of charging current from the first power supply and all of the amount of charging current from the second power supply to the first receptacle (claim 16).
Regarding claim 3, Saboury further teaches wherein the bridge assembly circuit directs all of the amount of charging current from the first power supply and less than all of the amount of charging current from the second power supply to the first receptacle and less than all of the amount of charging current from the second power supply to the second receptacle (claim 17).
Regarding claim 4, Saboury further teaches wherein the bridge assembly circuit comprises at least one current limiting circuit (claim 18).
Regarding claim 6, Saboury further teaches wherein the bridge assembly circuit comprises a first switch and a second switch to direct the amount of charging current from the first power supply and the amount of charging current from the second power supply to the first receptacle and/or the second receptacle (claim 19).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saboury in view of Maalouf et al. (US 2018/0138735).
Regarding claim 5, Saboury teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for a buck converter as claimed.
However, Maalouf teaches battery charger comprising current limiting circuit is a buck converter circuit (415, [0048]).
In view of Maalouf’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 of Saboury by incorporating the teaching as taught by Maalouf in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Saboury et al. (2023/0097967); Siverhus et al. (US 2022/0344952) and Jones et al. (US 2012/0019190) are cited because they are related to 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