DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are indicated in the table below, along with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB citation)
a connection status acquisition module
1, 2
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a database module
1, 3
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a charging status acquisition module
1, 4
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a charging mode selection module
1, 5
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a data feedback module
1, 7
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
an interface sensing unit
2
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a data conversion unit
2
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a data storage unit
2
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a charging sensing unit
4
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a data uploading unit
4
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a charging mode acquiring unit
5
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a threshold setting unit
6
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a threshold comparison unit
6
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a charging control unit
6
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a terminal binding unit
7
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
a feedback unit
7
Software modules or hardware modules [0196]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7 recite “units” which are “used for” various functions. Examiner notes that reciting “used for” instead of “for” brings into question whether the claims are properly invoking 112(f) or are instead recite “use” type limitations which can be considered indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(q)). For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the functions as “for” limitations and suggests amending the claims accordingly.
Claim 7 recites “used for acquiring the bound mobile intelligent terminal, wherein the binding of the mobile intelligent terminal is capable of being changed”. It is unclear what is meant by “the binding of the…terminal is capable of being charged”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. US Patent 10,543,754.
Regarding claims 1 and 8-10, Jang discloses a magnetic attraction type fixed charging device [col. 4, lines 4-6], comprising:
a connection status acquisition module, used for acquiring equipment interface and circuit connection information and uploading same to a database [fig. 5, 12; claim 6];
a database module, used for choosing whether to charge or not based on the interface and circuit connection information in the database [col. 14, lines 44-53];
a charging status acquisition module, used for acquiring equipment status information during charging and uploading same to a cloud [fig. 8, “charging and transmit charging information”];
a charging mode selection module, used for selecting a charging mode based on the equipment status information in the cloud [column 14, lines 54-65]; and
a data feedback module, used for sending the equipment status information and the charging mode to a bound mobile intelligent terminal [fig. 8, “transmit charging information].
Regarding claim 8, the method steps would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill based on the teachings of the Jang reference, above, as pertains to rejection of the apparatus of claim 1.
Regarding claims 9-10, the method steps would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill based on the teachings of the Jang reference, above, as pertains to rejection of the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, the Jang reference teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by a computer, perform the claimed method steps [column 9, lines 3-15; column 21, line 55-column 22, line 8].
Regarding claim 5, Jang discloses wherein the charging mode selection module comprises: a charging mode acquiring unit, used for acquiring a preset charging mode, wherein the charging mode is adjusted according to the equipment status; a charging mode selection unit, used for selecting the charging mode based on the equipment status information [column 13, line 63-column 14, line 5; column 14, lines 44-65; fast or slow charging determined based on the equipment status]; and
an equipment status updating unit, used for feeding the equipment status information in this charging mode back to the cloud so as to update the equipment status information [column 12, lines 52-64; charging information is sensed and uploaded to the cloud via LTE (fig. 4)].
Regarding claim 7, Jang discloses wherein the data feedback module comprises: a terminal binding unit, used for acquiring the bound mobile intelligent terminal, wherein the binding of the mobile intelligent terminal is capable of being changed [column 8, lines 23-30; column 17, lines 50-60]; and
a feedback unit, used for sending the equipment status information and the current charging mode to the bound mobile intelligent terminal [column 2, lines 50-55; column 8, lines 23-30; column 15, lines 10-17; column 15, line 50-column 16, line 10; column 16, lines 61-67; column 17, lines 14-31; column 19, lines 31-36; column 17, lines 50-60; charging status sent to mobile device, including amount and speed of charging (mode)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang US Patent 10,543,754 in view of Jung et al. US PGPUB 2017/0047765.
Regarding claim 2, Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the connection status acquisition module comprises: an interface sensing unit, used for detecting the equipment interface and circuit connection information based on sensors, wherein the sensors comprise a pressure sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor; a data conversion unit, used for converting the interface and circuit connection information into data information; and a data storage unit, used for storing the converted data information in the database.
However, Jung discloses a magnetic charging system [pars. 99 & 162-163] wherein the connection status acquisition module comprises:
an interface sensing unit, used for detecting the equipment interface and circuit connection information based on sensors, wherein the sensors comprise a pressure sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor [figs. 6-7; steps 610-630 & 730; par. 91-95, 128 & 170; proper or improper mounting is detected using sensors including a voltage/current sensor and pressure sensor (detecting if the protrusion is pressed into the recess or a push button is pressed, thus a pressure sensor)];
a data conversion unit, used for converting the interface and circuit connection information into data information; and a data storage unit, used for storing the converted data information in the database [fig. 6; par. 91-95, 128 & 170; the information is sensed by the sensors and converted into an electrical signal which is then sent to a controller where it is at least temporarily stored].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jang to further include wherein the connection status acquisition module comprises: an interface sensing unit, used for detecting the equipment interface and circuit connection information based on sensors, wherein the sensors comprise a pressure sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor; a data conversion unit, used for converting the interface and circuit connection information into data information; and a data storage unit, used for storing the converted data information in the database for the purpose of determining whether the device to be charged is mounted correctly, as taught by Jung (par. 119).
Regarding claim 3, Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the database module is used for acquiring the equipment interface and circuit connection information in the database; when both an interface and a circuit are connected, choosing to charge; and when at least one of the interface and the circuit is disconnected, choosing not to charge.
However, Jung discloses a magnetic charging system [pars. 99 & 162-163] wherein the database module is used for acquiring the equipment interface and circuit connection information in the database; when both an interface and a circuit are connected, choosing to charge; and when at least one of the interface and the circuit is disconnected, choosing not to charge [figs. 6-7; pars. 157-160, 164 & 171-180; the charging of the device is performed or not performed based on the detected and stored information regarding the mounting].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jang to further include wherein the database module is used for acquiring the equipment interface and circuit connection information in the database; when both an interface and a circuit are connected, choosing to charge; and when at least one of the interface and the circuit is disconnected, choosing not to charge for the purpose of determining whether the device to be charged is mounted correctly, as taught by Jung (par. 119).
Regarding claim 4, Jang discloses wherein the charging status acquisition module comprises: a charging sensing unit, used for acquiring the equipment status information during charging based on sensors [column 12, lines 52-64; charging information is sensed and reported]; and
a data uploading unit, used for converting the equipment status information acquired by the sensors into wireless transmission signals, and uploading same to the cloud [column 12, lines 52-64; charging information is sensed and uploaded to the cloud via LTE (fig. 4)].
Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensors comprise a voltage sensor, a current sensor, and a temperature acquisition sensor.
However, Jung discloses a magnetic charging system [pars. 99 & 162-163] wherein the sensors comprise a voltage sensor, a current sensor, and a temperature acquisition sensor [figs. 6-7; steps 610-630 & 730; par. 91-95, 128 & 170; proper or improper mounting is detected using sensors including a voltage/current sensor and pressure sensor (detecting if the protrusion is pressed into the recess or a push button is pressed, thus a pressure sensor)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jang to further include wherein the sensors comprise a voltage sensor, a current sensor, and a temperature acquisition sensor for the purpose of determining whether the device to be charged is mounted correctly, as taught by Jung (par. 119).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang US Patent 10,543,754.
Regarding claim 6, Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the charging mode selection module comprises: a threshold setting unit, used for acquiring preset equipment status thresholds, wherein the preset equipment status thresholds comprise a voltage upper limit, a current upper limit, and a temperature upper limit; a threshold comparison unit, used for comparing the equipment status information with the preset equipment status thresholds; and a charging control unit, used for stopping charging when the equipment status information exceeds the preset thresholds.
Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the charging mode selection module comprises: a threshold setting unit, used for acquiring preset equipment status thresholds, wherein the preset equipment status thresholds comprise a voltage upper limit, a current upper limit, and a temperature upper limit; a threshold comparison unit, used for comparing the equipment status information with the preset equipment status thresholds; and a charging control unit, used for stopping charging when the equipment status information exceeds the preset thresholds.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the charging arts to limit voltage, current and temperature based on certain thresholds to prevent damage to the battery or fires due to overcurrent, overvoltage or overheating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jang to further include wherein the charging mode selection module comprises: a threshold setting unit, used for acquiring preset equipment status thresholds, wherein the preset equipment status thresholds comprise a voltage upper limit, a current upper limit, and a temperature upper limit; a threshold comparison unit, used for comparing the equipment status information with the preset equipment status thresholds; and a charging control unit, used for stopping charging when the equipment status information exceeds the preset threshold for the purpose of preventing damage to the battery, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights