DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Final office action is in response to application 17/830,188, Applicant’s Amendment filed on 08/07/2025. In the amendment, claims 1, and 4-6 are amended by Applicant. Claims 1-7 are currently pending in this application.
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).
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for claims 1-4 in view of the combination of Gilchrest (US PG Pub No. 2022/0355687) and Bianco (US PG Pub No. 2013/0015816).
4. On page 3 of Applicant’s response, Applicant traverses the 35 USC § 102 rejection in light of the fact that Applicant has now incorporated the solar powered LED limitation from independent claim 5 into independent claim 1. However, Examiner notes that the solar powered LED feature is taught by Bianco. In addressing this, Applicant asserts that the combination of Gilchrest and Bianco is improper because there is no articulated reasoning with rational underpinning that would have motivated a skilled artisan to combine the cited references in the manner proposed by the Examiner. In explaining Applicant’s position, on pages 4-5 of Applicant’s response, Applicant asserts that the combination of Gilchrest and Bianco: 1. Address different problems; 2. are structurally incompatible; 3. is absent of a suggestion or teaching to combine; 4. creates a detriment to primary function; and 5. and is based on hindsight reconstruction. Examiner disagrees with this assertion.
5. First, with respect to Applicant’s remarks that suggest Gilchrest and Bianco solve different problems, Examiner points out that both Gilchrest and Bianco clearly involve charging stations capable of charging electric vehicles. While Applicant has narrowly interpreted the problem domain of each of Gilchrest and Bianco, Examiner points out that both Gilchrest and Bianco relate to the installation of portable/modular charging station equipment onto a charging post. Further, both Gilchrest and Bianco are more broadly designed to improve safety for the user. Gilchrest does this by incorporating electronic components and switches that improve safety for the both the circuit and user, while Bianco improves user safety by providing LED illumination in an effort to improve visibility and location of the charging station, which greatly improves the users ability to locate the charging station at night. Examiner further goes on to state that it is practically ubiquitous in the art of public charging stations that illumination of some kind is provided at the charging station in order to improve safety and identification. Second, with respect to Applicant’s remarks that suggest Gilchrest and Bianco are structurally incompatible, Examiner points out that the LED illumination source 150 of Bianco appears to be mounted on top of the charging post, and there is no suggestion in either Gilchrest and Bianco that such a top mounted LED light source would interfere the primary objectives of Gilchrest. Thus, both Gilchrest and Bianco are structurally compatible because they both relate to modular/portable charging stations mounted on a pedestal or charging post. Regarding an absence of a teaching to combine Bianco’s illumination system with Gilchrest, Examiner points out that Bianco is relied on merely to suggest that charging station posts can have illumination sources in order to improve safety and identification of the charging station, especially for those users that need to find a charging station pedestal/post at night. Further, it is not required that such a motivation to combine two or more references comes directly from the disclosure of any particular reference, but rather the question is would a skilled artisan be motivated to incorporate aspects of two or more inventions in order to each other. Here, the question is yes because of the well-established usefulness (as motivated by Bianco) to locate charging station pedestal/posts, especially at night in order to improve public safety use of the charging station pedestal/post. Regarding a potential detriment to primary function, there is no suggestion in either Gilchrest and Bianco that such a top mounted LED light source would interfere the primary objectives of Gilchrest, thus there is no impairment to combining Bianco’s top-mounted LED illumination source to the invention of Gilchrest. Based on the above analysis of determining whether a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine the teachings of Gilchrest and Bianco, it is clear that the Examiner is not relying on improper hindsight reconstruction, but rather relying on the motivations of the skilled artisan to improve the safety and identifiability of public charging station pedestals/posts. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have combined the LED illumination feature of Bianco in the charging station pedestal/post of Gilchrest.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrest (US PG Pub No. 2022/0355687) in view of Bianco (US PG Pub No. 2013/0015816).
8. With respect to claim 1, Gilchrest teaches:
A method, comprising:
providing a pedestal device with a docking area for a wall-mount AC or DC EVSE to be docked in the pedestal device (pedestal mount accessory 140 of Fig 1, para 25; see pedestal having a mounting/docking area at the top of the pedestal 140 of Fig 1, para 25; see discussion of EV chargers, including AC charging system, para 3-5; L1 and L2 charging, para 6-7; EVSE, para 4-5; mounting the charger onto the pedestal, para 52-53);
mounting a wall-mount box of the wall-mount AC or DC EVSE on the pedestal device at the docking area and routing a cable through a cable management retractor (mounting the charger onto the pedestal, para 52-53; mounting the charger onto the pedestal, para 52-53; see ratcheting retractor including a flexible cord, Abstract; charging cable can be fixed to EVSE equipment and pedestal mount, para 5-7);
connecting electrical connections provided by an integral junction box (see assembly 240 of Fig 2, for terminal blocks and breaker which create electrical connections between charger and grid, para 25-26; 44-45);
connecting communication cables provided by the integral junction box (see antenna assembly for use in communication, connected to assembly enclosure for wiring/connections, para 26; see sensors and indicators for communicating charger status to user, wired to pedestal mount accessory, para 25; RFID communication sensors connected, para 25; see low voltage wiring, para 41-42; displays for branding and advertising, para 25-26; see 5G transmitter for communication, para 58); and
using the EVSE to charge a fleet EV (using EVSE to charge vehicle battery, para 35-37).
Gilchrest appears to be silent regarding:
a pedestal device with solar powered LED lights at the top of the pedestal device.
However, Bianco teaches:
a pedestal device with solar powered LED lights at the top of the pedestal device (solar powered LED mounted on top of the charging post, para 6, 26; see solar powered LED 150 on top of charging post 100, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to have incorporated the solar powered LED lights of Bianco on top of the pedestal of Gilchrest for at least the following reason(s): Bianco teaches that an solar powered LED light on top of a charging post/pedestal offers the improvement of indicating the location of the charging station to users (Bianco, para 26) Examiner notes that is practically ubiquitous in the art area of public vehicle charging systems that illumination sources are often provided with or on charging station units in order to help users find them when they need to recharge their electric vehicles, especially at night.
9. With respect to claim 2, Gilchrest teaches:
the method of claim 1, wherein status LEDs supply information on charging (see sensors and indicators for communicating charger status to user, wired to pedestal mount accessory, para 25; see LED charger status indicators, para 25).
10. With respect to claim 3, Gilchrest teaches:
the method of claim 1, wherein a frame of the pedestal device is made of aluminum (aluminum material used for pedestal and enclosure, para 25-27).
11. With respect to claim 4, Gilchrest teaches:
the method of claim 1, wherein an integrated lockout function is provided via the integral junction box to kill power to EVSE for safety purposes (see de-energizing charging station using circuit or circuit breaker, para 40, 44; see mitigating safety risk and relays designed to provide safety system, para 40).
12. With respect to claim 5, Gilchrest teaches:
A pedestal device (pedestal mount accessory 140 of Fig 1, para 25), comprising:
a docking area configured to provide mounting and service access for a wall-mount AC or DC EVSE to be docked in the pedestal device (see pedestal having a mounting/docking area at the top of the pedestal 140 of Fig 1, para 25; see discussion of EV chargers, including AC charging system, para 3-5; L1 and L2 charging, para 6-7; EVSE, para 4-5; mounting the charger onto the pedestal, para 52-53; see service access by way of accessible service door, para 25, Figs 1-2);
a mounting area for a wall-mount box of the wall-mount AC or DC EVSE on the pedestal device at the docking area (mounting the charger onto the pedestal, para 52-53; mounting the charger onto the pedestal, para 52-53);
a cable management retractor (see ratcheting retractor including a flexible cord, Abstract; charging cable can be fixed to EVSE equipment and pedestal mount, para 5-7);
a hose configured to charge an electric vehicle (electric charging cable to charge vehicle, Abstract; see retractable hose for retraction of cable, para 37).
Gilchrest appears to be silent regarding:
solar powered LED lights.
However, Bianco teaches:
solar powered LED lights (solar powered LED mounted on top of the charging post, para 6, 26; see solar powered LED 150 on top of charging post 100, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to have incorporated the solar powered LED lights of Bianco on top of the pedestal of Gilchrest for at least the following reason(s): Bianco teaches that an solar powered LED light on top of a charging post/pedestal offers the improvement of indicating the location of the charging station to users (Bianco, para 26).
13. With respect to claim 6, Bianco teaches:
the pedestal device of claim 5, wherein solar powered LED lights appear at the top of the depot box pedestal (solar powered LED mounted on top of the charging post, para 6, 26; see solar powered LED 150 on top of charging post 100, Fig. 3).
14. With respect to claim 7, Gilchrest teaches:
the pedestal device of claim 5, wherein an integrated lockout function is provided via junction box to kill power to EVSE for safety purposes (see de-energizing charging station using circuit or circuit breaker, para 40, 44; see mitigating safety risk and relays designed to provide safety system, para 40).
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).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUCHIN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (703)756-1970. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUCHIN PARIHAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851