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 the Claims
In the communication dated May 22, 2024, claims 1-20 are pending.
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 7-9 and 17 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.
Claim 7 recites “the other alignment feature” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is referring to “another alignment feature” of claim 6 line 2. For the purposes of examination, the recited feature of claim 7 is interpreted as being that of “another alignment feature” of claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the other alignment feature" in lines 3 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the interlock element being configured to engage with another interlock element associated with the other alignment feature” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this is referring to “another alignment feature” of claim 6 line 2. For the purposes of examination, the recited feature of claim 8 is interpreted as being that of “another alignment feature” of claim 6.
Claim 17 contains similar subject matter and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the other alignment feature" in lines 2-3 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 contains similar subject matter and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 9 is rejected at least for its dependency from a rejected claim.
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 (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 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, 10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsushita et al. US20230147563A1 (as cited in the IDS dated 9/9/2024).
Regarding claim 1. Matsushita discloses an electric micromobility vehicle charging system (FIG. 1-11B; ¶28) comprising:
a docking station (2) configured to facilitate docking of an electric micromobility vehicle (3) with the docking station for charging (¶28 – “The power feeding station 2 can feed power to the two-wheeler 3”);
a wireless power receiver device (21) associated with the electric micromobility vehicle (3), the wireless power receiver device (21) comprising a wireless magnetic resonant receiver (41); and
a wireless power transmitter device (11) associated with the docking station (2), the wireless power transmitter device comprising a wireless magnetic resonant transmitter (32), wherein the docking station (2) is configured to facilitate operative positioning (¶31 – “the space between the two pillars 13 and 14 corresponds to the position of the front wheel of the two-wheeler 3 to be parked “), at least in part, of the wireless magnetic resonant receiver relative to the wireless magnetic resonant transmitter with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle with the docking station for charging (¶33 – “the receiver coil 41 in the receiver 21 in the two-wheeler 3 parked at the power feeding station 2 to face the feeder coil 32 in the feeder 11”).
Regarding claim 2. Matsushita discloses the wireless magnetic resonant transmitter comprises a transmitter coil (32) and the wireless magnetic resonant receiver comprises a receiver coil (41) and wherein the docking station (2) is configured to facilitate operative positioning of the receiver coil relative to the transmitter coil with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle with the docking station for charging (¶33 – “the receiver coil 41 in the receiver 21 in the two-wheeler 3 parked at the power feeding station 2 to face the feeder coil 32 in the feeder 11”).
Regarding claim 3. Matsushita discloses with operative positioning of the receiver coil (41) relative to the transmitter coil (32), the receiver coil and transmitter coil are substantially parallel (FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 4. Matsushita discloses the transmitter coil (32) is located in an upper portion (15) of the docking station (2) (FIG. 2), and wherein the docking station (2) further comprises a cover (17) over the transmitter coil (32) in the upper portion (15) of the docking station (2) (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 5. Matsushita discloses the cover (17) includes an alignment feature (12) to facilitate guiding, at least in part, the receiver coil into charging position relative to the transmitter coil with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle with the docking station for charging (¶34 – cover surrounds the compartment 16; ¶35– “The display 12 displays a message for guidance about the parking position (or stop position) of the two-wheeler 3 received from the feeder 11”).
Regarding claim 10. Matsushita discloses the docking station (2) comprises a wheel guide (FIG. 2/3 – grooves 13a/14a; ¶32 – “The grooves 13 a and 14 a may be engageable with the hub shaft of the front wheel of the two-wheeler 3 when the two-wheeler 3 is parked”) configured to receive a wheel (23) of the electric micromobility vehicle (3) (FIGS. 1-3; ¶29/32) with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle with the docking station for charging and a vertically extending housing angled in a direction (FIGS. 1-7. Angle of vertically extending housing comprising 16 and 17; ¶34 – “The compartment 16 may have a cover 17 protruding further toward the two-wheeler 3 than the front surface 16 a of the compartment 16”) of docking of the electric micromobility vehicle within the docking station (FIGS. 1-3).
Regarding claim 18. Matsushita discloses an electric micromobility vehicle charging system (FIG. 1-11B; ¶28) comprising:
a housing (2) with a wheel-receiving opening within the housing (FIG. 4), the wheel-receiving opening being sized to receive a wheel of an electric micromobility vehicle (3) when the electric micromobility vehicle is docked with the electric micromobility vehicle docking station (2) for charging (FIG. 4; charging (¶28 – “The power feeding station 2 can feed power to the two-wheeler 3”); and
a wireless power transmitter device (11) disposed, at least in part, within the housing over the wheel-receiving opening of the housing (FIG. 1), the wireless power transmitter device (11) facilitating wireless power transfer to a wireless power receiver device (21) associated with the electric micromobility vehicle (3) when the electric micromobility vehicle is operatively docked with the electric micromobility vehicle docking station (2) for charging (¶33 – “the receiver coil 41 in the receiver 21 in the two-wheeler 3 parked at the power feeding station 2 to face the feeder coil 32 in the feeder 11”).
Regarding claim 19. Matsumura discloses the wireless power transmitter device comprises a wireless magnetic resonant transmitter (32), and the wireless power receiver device comprises a wireless magnetic resonant receiver (41), and wherein the wireless magnetic resonant transmitter is positioned within the housing over the wheel receiving opening of the housing (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 20. Matsumura discloses that the wheel-receiving opening extends through the housing (FIG. 4).
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.
Claims 6, 8 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. US20230147563A1 in view of Brooks et al. US20230202326A1 (as cited in the IDS dated 9/9/2024).
Regarding claim 6. Matsushita discloses the alignment feature (12) of the cover (17) aligning a receiver coil housing containing the receiver coil to facilitate operative positioning of the receiver coil (41) relative to the transmitter coil (32) with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle (3) with the docking station (2) for charging (¶35– “The display 12 displays a message for guidance about the parking position (or stop position) of the two-wheeler 3 received from the feeder 11”).
Matsushita does not explicitly disclose that the alignment feature of the cover is configured to be engaged by another alignment feature.
Brooks discloses that the alignment feature of the cover (430) is configured to be engaged by another alignment feature (¶23 – “a vehicle may comprise a locking member that is configured to be received by a locking mechanism 564”).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a locking mechanism in order to allow the dock to be self-sufficient and independently deployable thus expanding the functionalities of the dock (Brooks ¶14).
Regarding claim 8. Although Matsushita discloses guiding and aligning the transmitter with the receiver (¶35– “The display 12 displays a message for guidance about the parking position (or stop position) of the two-wheeler 3 received from the feeder 11”), Matsushita does not explicitly disclose that the cover further includes an interlock element associated with the alignment feature, the interlock element being configured to engage with another interlock element associated with the other alignment feature of the mobility vehicle with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle with the docking station for charging.
Brooks discloses that the cover (430) further includes an interlock element (564) associated with the alignment feature (FIG. 4F), the interlock element (564) being configured to engage with another interlock element associated with the other alignment feature of the mobility vehicle housing with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle (136) with the docking station (200) for charging (¶23 – “a vehicle may comprise a locking member that is configured to be received by a locking mechanism 564”).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a locking mechanism in order to allow the dock to be self-sufficient and independently deployable thus expanding the functionalities of the dock (Brooks ¶14).
Regarding claim 11. Matsushita discloses an electric micromobility vehicle charging system (FIG. 1-11B; ¶28) comprising:
a docking station (2) with a wheel guide configured to receive a wheel of an electric micromobility vehicle to facilitate docking of the electric micromobility vehicle with the universal docking station for charging (see annotated and partially reproduced FIG. 4 below), the electric micromobility vehicle (3) being one electric micromobility vehicle type dockable for charging within the docking station (FIG. 4);
PNG
media_image1.png
474
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a wireless power receiver device (21) associated with the electric micromobility vehicle (3), the wireless power receiver device (21) comprising a wireless magnetic resonant receiver (41); and
a wireless power transmitter device (11) associated with the docking station (2), the wireless power transmitter device comprising a wireless magnetic resonant transmitter (32), wherein the docking station (2) is configured to facilitate operative positioning (¶31 – “the space between the two pillars 13 and 14 corresponds to the position of the front wheel of the two-wheeler 3 to be parked “), at least in part, of the wireless magnetic resonant receiver relative to the wireless magnetic resonant transmitter with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle within the docking station for charging (¶33 – “the receiver coil 41 in the receiver 21 in the two-wheeler 3 parked at the power feeding station 2 to face the feeder coil 32 in the feeder 11”).
Matsushita does not explicitly teach a universal docking station for multiple electric micromobility vehicle types dockable for charging within the universal docking station.
Brooks teaches a universal docking station for multiple electric micromobility vehicle types dockable for charging within the universal docking station (FIG. 2 illustrates two different vehicle types docked at the same station; ¶15 – “a rideable include a bike, scooter, or other forms of a rideable vehicle”).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the electric mobility vehicle charging system of Matsushita to be able to charge two types of vehicles, such as a scooter and a bike, as taught by Booker, in order to provide the predictable result of being able to charge multiple vehicles simultaneously.
Regarding claim 12. Matsushita does not explicitly teach that the multiple electric micromobility vehicle types are selected from the group consisting of electric bike types and electric scooter types.
Brooks teaches that the multiple electric micromobility vehicle types are selected from the group consisting of electric bike types and electric scooter types (FIG. 2 illustrates two different vehicle types docked at the same station; ¶15 – “a rideable include a bike, scooter, or other forms of a rideable vehicle”).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the electric mobility vehicle charging system of Matsushita to be able to charge two types of vehicles, such as a scooter and a bike, as taught by Booker, in order to provide the predictable result of being able to charge multiple vehicles simultaneously.
Regarding claim 13. Matsushita does not explicitly disclose that at least two electric micromobility vehicle types of the multiple electric micromobility vehicle types have different battery types associated therewith to respectively power the at least two electric micromobility vehicle types.
Booker discloses that at least two electric micromobility vehicle types of the multiple electric micromobility vehicle types have different battery types associated therewith to respectively power the at least two electric micromobility vehicle types (FIG. 2 illustrates two different vehicle types docked at the same station; ¶14 – “Each dock may also be configured to be connected to an external power source to provide the capability to charge electrical vehicles (e.g., bikes, scooters, etc.)” – each vehicle has its own battery).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the electric mobility vehicle charging system of Matsushita to be able to charge two types of batteries, one for a scooter, and one battery for a bike, as taught by Booker, in order to provide the predictable result of being able to charge multiple vehicles simultaneously.
Regarding claim 14. Matsushita discloses the wireless magnetic resonant transmitter comprises a transmitter coil (32) and the wireless magnetic resonant receiver comprises a receiver coil (41) and wherein the docking station (2) is configured to facilitate operative positioning of the receiver coil relative to the transmitter coil with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle with the docking station for charging (¶33 – “the receiver coil 41 in the receiver 21 in the two-wheeler 3 parked at the power feeding station 2 to face the feeder coil 32 in the feeder 11”).
Matsushita does not explicitly teach a universal docking station.
Brooks teaches a universal docking station (FIG. 2 illustrates two different vehicle types docked at the same station; ¶15 – “a rideable include a bike, scooter, or other forms of a rideable vehicle”).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the electric mobility vehicle charging system of Matsushita to be able to charge two types of vehicles, such as a scooter and a bike, as taught by Booker, in order to provide the predictable result of being able to charge multiple vehicles simultaneously.
Regarding claim 15. Matsushita discloses the transmitter coil (32) is located in an upper portion (15) of the docking station (2) (FIG. 2), and the electric micromobility vehicle (3) charging system further comprises:
a cover (17) over the transmitter coil (32) in the upper portion (15) of the docking station (2) (FIG. 3), wherein the cover (17) includes an alignment feature (12) to facilitate guiding, at least in part, the receiver coil into charging position relative to the transmitter coil with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle with the docking station for charging (¶34 – cover surrounds the compartment 16; ¶35– “The display 12 displays a message for guidance about the parking position (or stop position) of the two-wheeler 3 received from the feeder 11”).
Matsushita does not explicitly teach a universal docking station.
Brooks teaches a universal docking station (FIG. 2 illustrates two different vehicle types docked at the same station; ¶15 – “a rideable include a bike, scooter, or other forms of a rideable vehicle”).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the electric mobility vehicle charging system of Matsushita to be able to charge at least two types of vehicles, such as a scooter and a bike, as taught by Booker, in order to provide the predictable result of being able to charge multiple vehicles simultaneously.
Regarding claim 16. Matsushita discloses the alignment feature (12) of the cover (17) aligning a receiver coil housing containing the receiver coil to facilitate operative positioning of the receiver coil (41) relative to the transmitter coil (32) with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle (3) with the docking station (2) for charging (¶35– “The display 12 displays a message for guidance about the parking position (or stop position) of the two-wheeler 3 received from the feeder 11”).
Matsushita does not explicitly disclose a universal docking station; the alignment feature of the cover is configured to be engaged by another alignment feature.
Brooks teaches a universal docking station (FIG. 2 illustrates two different vehicle types docked at the same station; ¶15 – “a rideable include a bike, scooter, or other forms of a rideable vehicle”).
Brooks discloses that the alignment feature of the cover (430) is configured to be engaged by another alignment feature (¶23 – “a vehicle may comprise a locking member that is configured to be received by a locking mechanism 564”).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the electric mobility vehicle charging system of Matsushita to be able to charge at least two types of vehicles, such as a scooter and a bike, as taught by Booker, in order to provide the predictable result of being able to charge multiple vehicles simultaneously.
Regarding claim 17. Although Matsushita discloses guiding and aligning the transmitter with the receiver (¶35– “The display 12 displays a message for guidance about the parking position (or stop position) of the two-wheeler 3 received from the feeder 11”), Matsushita does not explicitly disclose a universal docking station; the cover further includes an interlock element associated with the alignment feature, the interlock element being configured to engage with another interlock element associated with the other alignment feature of the mobility vehicle with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle with the docking station for charging.
Brooks teaches a universal docking station (FIG. 2 illustrates two different vehicle types docked at the same station; ¶15 – “a rideable include a bike, scooter, or other forms of a rideable vehicle”).
Brooks discloses that the cover (430) further includes an interlock element (564) associated with the alignment feature (FIG. 4F), the interlock element (564) being configured to engage with another interlock element associated with the other alignment feature of the mobility vehicle housing with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle (136) with the docking station (200) for charging (¶23 – “a vehicle may comprise a locking member that is configured to be received by a locking mechanism 564”).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the electric mobility vehicle charging system of Matsushita to be able to charge two types of vehicles, such as a scooter and a bike, as taught by Booker, in order to provide the predictable result of being able to charge multiple vehicles simultaneously.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. US20230147563A1 in view of Brooks et al. US20230202326A1 and further in view of Askin et al. US20230365015A1.
Regarding claim 7. Matsushita does not explicitly disclose that the alignment feature of the cover comprises a triangular-shaped receiving channel formed in the cover and the other alignment feature comprises a triangular-shaped alignment element sized and configured to reside within the triangular-shaped receiving channel in the cover of the docking station with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle with the docking station for charging.
Brooks discloses that the alignment feature (564) of the cover (430) comprises a triangular-shaped receiving channel (see annotated and reproduced FIG. 4F below) formed in the cover (430) and the other alignment feature comprises alignment element sized and configured to reside within the triangular-shaped receiving channel in the cover of the docking station with docking of the electric micromobility vehicle with the docking station for charging (¶23 – “a vehicle may comprise a locking member that is configured to be received by a locking mechanism 564”).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a locking mechanism in order to allow the dock to be self-sufficient and independently deployable thus expanding the functionalities of the dock (Brooks ¶14).
PNG
media_image2.png
564
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brooks does not explicitly disclose that the other alignment feature comprises a triangular-shaped alignment element.
Askin discloses a triangular-shaped alignment element (402) (¶36).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a triangular-shaped element, as taught by Askin, to fit the configuration of the receiver of Brooks.
Regarding claim 9. Matshushita does not explicitly disclose that the alignment feature comprises a receiving channel formed in the cover and the interlock element comprises at least one knob within the receiving channel formed in the cover of the docking station.
Brooks discloses that the alignment feature (564) comprises a receiving channel formed in the cover (430) and the interlock element (564) comprises at least one knob within the receiving channel formed in the cover of the docking station (see reproduced and annotated FIG. 4F below).
PNG
media_image3.png
564
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the electric mobility vehicle charging system of Matsushita to be able to charge two types of vehicles, such as a scooter and a bike, as taught by Booker, in order to provide the predictable result of being able to charge multiple vehicles simultaneously.
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. US20260184211A1 – discloses a charging station for mobility vehicles having an alignment mechanism.
Fox et al. US20210138921A1 – discloses a charging station for a plurality of scooters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM..
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights