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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,454. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are broader than the patented claims.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bently (Pub. No.: US 2020/0264088 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bently teaches a charging station (Fig 1, air quality post 1000) comprising:
at least one charger (para [0032], “Other examples of functionalities which may be included in one or more pole modules and/or in the support pole are any one or more of the following: ” and [0038], “charger circuitry, e.g. phone/computer/tablet charger circuitry or vehicle charger circuitry; or UAV charger circuitry (e.g. drone charger circuitry)”. The post includes a plurality of modules. One of those modules includes a charger.);
at least one of a smoke detector or a carbon monoxide detector (Fig. 1, sensor module 300, para [0015], “According to an exemplary embodiment the at least one gas sensor is configured to sense a gas concentration measure for at least one of the following air pollutants: NO.sub.2, O.sub.3, NO, CO, SO.sub.2, H.sub.2S.”and para [0039], “a sound sensor, a microphone, a voice recorder, a detector of smoke, an image sensor, etc.”. Sensor module 300 includes a smoke or carbon monoxide (CO) detector.);
an extension attached to the charging station (Fig. 1, the module connector 700); and
a controller configured to receive a signal from the smoke detector or the carbon monoxide detector (para [0047], “The air quality sensing assembly 330 comprises at least one gas sensor 331, 332, particle counter 335 and a control unit 337 for obtaining and outputting air quality data based on measurements by said at least one gas sensor 331, 332 and the particle counter 335.”) and in response,
illuminate one or more lights positioned on the extension (Fig. 1, light module 200, and para [0016], “According to an exemplary embodiment the control unit is configured for outputting to another pole module of the lamp post a feedback signal based on the obtained air quality data. According to another exemplary embodiment the air quality pole module further comprises an output interface configured for outputting information to a user based on the obtained air quality data. In other words, a user may be informed about the quality of the air, either through the air quality pole module itself or through another pole module of the lamp post. The output interface may comprise e.g. any one or more of the following: a light source such as a light source capable of emitting light in different colours based on the obtained air quality data or capable of changing a lighting pattern in time or space in function of the obtained air quality data;”. The light module is positioned on top of the module connector 700 and is configured to output a light color that corresponds to the status of the smoke / CO detector.).
Regarding claim 2, Bently teaches the charging station of claim 1, further comprising an angled wall extending from a base, wherein the at least one charger is enclosed by the angled wall (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, each module has a wall 315 that is angled at 90 degrees from the base 100. The charger is housed by the charger module.).
Regarding claim 3, Bently teaches the charging station of claim 2, wherein the angled wall includes one or more shelves to support a device thereon (Fig. 3, shows the vertical wall 381 is connected to a support structure that is tilted about 30 degrees upward to support the sensor 337 or charger).
Regarding claim 4, Bently teaches the charging station of claim 1, wherein the smoke detector or the carbon monoxide detector are contained in a cylindrical housing disposed on the extension (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, para [0043], “The modules 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 may be arranged in any order one above the other, and may be connected to the support pole 100 and to each other in any suitable way, e.g. using pole module connectors 700”. The sensor module 300 has a cylindrical housing that can be stacked on top of the module connector 700).
Regarding claim 5, Bently teaches the charging station of claim 1, wherein the one or more lights extend along a length of the extension (Fig. 1, the light module 200 extends along the vertical length of the module connection 700.).
Regarding claim 6, Bently teaches the charging station of claim 1, further comprising a cylindrical light positioned on the extension (Fig. 1, the light module 200 has a cylindrical housing positioned on top of the module connector 700.).
Regarding claim 7, Bently teaches the charging station of claim 6, further comprising the controller configured to receive the signal from the smoke detector or the carbon monoxide detector and in response, illuminate the cylindrical light (para [0016], “According to an exemplary embodiment the control unit is configured for outputting to another pole module of the lamp post a feedback signal based on the obtained air quality data. According to another exemplary embodiment the air quality pole module further comprises an output interface configured for outputting information to a user based on the obtained air quality data. In other words, a user may be informed about the quality of the air, either through the air quality pole module itself or through another pole module of the lamp post. The output interface may comprise e.g. any one or more of the following: a light source such as a light source capable of emitting light in different colours based on the obtained air quality data or capable of changing a lighting pattern in time or space in function of the obtained air quality data;”. The control unit of the sensor module 300 outputs the smoke / CO quality to the light module 200. The light module output a light color that corresponds to the air quality).
Regarding claim 9, Bently teaches the charging station of claim 1, further comprising a horizontal tray extending from a distal end of an angled wall extending from a base (Fig. 6A, a horizontal top surface 326 is connected to the distal end of the vertical wall).
Regarding claim 10, Bently teaches a system (Fig 1, air quality post 1000) comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 3, control unit 337); and
one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (It is inherent that the control unit includes memory storing instructions to perform the disclosed functions), cause the system to perform a process comprising:
receiving a signal from a smoke detector or a carbon monoxide detector of a charging station (para [0047], “The air quality sensing assembly 330 comprises at least one gas sensor 331, 332, particle counter 335 and a control unit 337 for obtaining and outputting air quality data based on measurements by said at least one gas sensor 331, 332 and the particle counter 335.”.); and
in response to receiving the signal, illuminating one or more lights positioned on an extension attached to the charging station (Fig. 1, light module 200, and para [0016], “According to an exemplary embodiment the control unit is configured for outputting to another pole module of the lamp post a feedback signal based on the obtained air quality data. According to another exemplary embodiment the air quality pole module further comprises an output interface configured for outputting information to a user based on the obtained air quality data. In other words, a user may be informed about the quality of the air, either through the air quality pole module itself or through another pole module of the lamp post. The output interface may comprise e.g. any one or more of the following: a light source such as a light source capable of emitting light in different colours based on the obtained air quality data or capable of changing a lighting pattern in time or space in function of the obtained air quality data;”. The light module is positioned on top of the module connector 700 and is configured to output a light color that correspond to the status of the smoke / CO detector.), wherein the charging station includes at least one charger (para [0032], “Other examples of functionalities which may be included in one or more pole modules and/or in the support pole are any one or more of the following: ” and [0038], “charger circuitry, e.g. phone/computer/tablet charger circuitry or vehicle charger circuitry; or UAV charger circuitry (e.g. drone charger circuitry)”. The post includes a plurality of modules. One of those modules includes a charger.).
Regarding claim 11, recites a structure that is similar to the structure of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 12, recites a structure that is similar to the structure of claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 13, recites a structure that is similar to the structure of claim 7. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 15, recites a structure that is similar to the structure of claim 9. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 16, recites a method for the charging station of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 17, recites a method for the charging station of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 18, recites a method for the charging station of claim 7. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 20, recites a method for the charging station of claim 9. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
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 (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 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.
Claims 8, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bently (Pub. No.: US 2020/0264088 A1) in view of Young (Pub. No.: US 2015/0326060 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bently teaches the charging station of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising a pair of vertically oriented charging walls, each having an inductive charging coil positioned therein.
However, in the same field of charger, Young teaches a charger module comprises of a plurality of vertical chargers. See Fig. 2 – Fig. 5, para [0021], “One embodiment of a bulk wireless charger station 200 is illustrated in FIG. 2. As mentioned above, each charging device (not shown) may have an embedded inductive charging receiving apparatus enabling the device to be charged.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bently’s charger module with a charger module taught by Young to increase the number of chargers.
Regarding claim 14, recites a structure that is similar to the structure of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, recites a method for the charging station of claims 4 and 8. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Agurs (Pub. No.: US 2010/0039273 A1) teaches a hazard detection system comprises of a charger, smoke/CO sensor and alert device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights