DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 14 are pending.
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 .
Notification of invoking - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
Claims 1 – 12 are invoking 112(f) interpretation for reciting limitations such as “a communication unit” “a power reception unit” “a control unit” “a detection unit “a charging unit”, has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “communicates, receives, performs, displays, detects, determines” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-12 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification paragraphs 27,28,33-42 for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Thus, the above invoking 112(f) terms “a communication unit” “a power reception unit” “a control unit” “a detection unit “a charging unit” will be interpreted according to the structure definition provided in paragraphs 27,28,33-42.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-4, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 20140103862 A1) and in view of Pelissier (US 20170293334 A1).
The teachings of Ahn as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by reference to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 13 and 14 to incorporate the limitations that (*) the second power supply apparatus being connected to the second power reception port and communication with the second power supply apparatus having been established by the communication unit.
Regarding the amended limitation (*), Ahn teaches the second power supply apparatus being connected to the second power reception port [0022: both charging ports (i.e., first charging port 202 and second charging port 204) are connected to power sources, comparison module 212 may rely on a programmable priority bit to determine which charging port should be used for charging]. However, Ahn does not explicitly disclose communication with the second power supply apparatus having been established by the communication unit.
Pelissier discloses the second power supply apparatus [one of the external device] being connected to the second power reception port [one of the ports 30] and communication with the second power supply apparatus having been established by the communication unit [0018: USB controller 26 performs a standard USB power negotiation handshake with external devices as the external devices couple to data ports 30 with USB cables 34. In the negotiation, a maximum power transfer capability is established for the external devices and charger 28. Power transfer may initiate in a conventional manner supported by USB controller 26 and charger 28, or a bypass configuration may be initiated before power transfer begins. Once power transfer manager determines that a source and sink external device have compatible power transfer characteristics, power transfer manager 32 coordinates a power transfer handshake with USB controller 26 that ensures power transfer will remain within the constraints of both the source and sink power devices] [Claim 10].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ahn and Pelissier together because they both directed to selectively provide power to the corresponding port. Pelissier’s disclosing of a power supply apparatus connected to a respective charging port communicates and negotiates its power-transfer capability with corresponding power path is activated would allow Ahn to make such a modification to determined the connected power supply’s permissible power-transfer characteristics before electrically coupling that supply to the apparatus, thereby permitting controlled power transfer within the capabilities of the connected source and receiving device.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 9-13, the base claim 1 is taught by Ahn and in view of Pelissier as disclosed above and the additional limitations in these claims are taught by Ahn as disclosed in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is directed to a non-transitory claim for performing the steps in the apparatus claim as set forth in claim 1. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn US 20140103862 A1 and in view of in view of Pelissier US 20170293334 A1 and in further view of Yong US 20200184921 A1.
Regarding claims 5-6, the base claim 1 is taught by Ahn in view of Pelissier and the additional limitations in claims 5-6 are taught by Yong disclosed in the previous office action. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ahn, Pelissier and Yong together because they directed to selectively provide power to the corresponding port. Yong’s disclosing of presenting the user options via a display to indicate charging the capability of charging ports would allow Ahn in view of Pelissier to increase user convenient by allowing the user to selectively charge the device based on the port selection and identify which power port cannot provide the charging power.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn US 20140103862 A1 and in view of Pelissier US 20170293334 A1 and in further view of Yong US 20200184921 A1 and in further view of Ricci (US Publication US 20170136894 A1).
Regarding claims 7-8, the base claims 1 and 5 are taught by Ahn in view of Pelissier and Yong and the additional limitations in claims 7-8 are taught by Yong disclosed in the previous office action. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ahn, Pelissier, Yong and Ricci together because they directed to selectively provide power to the corresponding port. Ricci’s disclosing displaying the capability of the available power sources would allow Ahn in view of Pelissier and in further view of Yong to increase user convenient by providing the user the indication which charging port(s) is/are available to charge the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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).
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner (see MPEP § 2123).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHIL K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3356. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 a.m - 5 p.m.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571)270-1640. 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.
/PHIL K NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
