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 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 8, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, and 26 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.
In claim 8, at line 3, the term “high” in “high curbstone” is a relative term that renders the claim scope uncertain. Reasonable artisans will differ on what constitutes “high” without an objective standard.
In claim 14, the phase “strong enough to enable sufficiently strong energy transmission” is relative because reasonable artisans will differ on what constitutes “strong enough” and what constitutes “sufficiently strong” without an objective standard.
In claim 16, the phrase “the coupling unit” lacks antecedent basis in claims 1 and 14 such that it renders the claim scope uncertain.
In claim 20, the phrase “installed in the usual manner” is relative and renders the claim indefinite. Reasonable artisans will differ on what constitutes “usual manner” without an objective standard.
In claim 21, the phrase “immediate vicinity” is relative and renders the claim indefinite. Reasonable artisans will differ on what constitutes “immediate” and what is in the “vicinity” without an objective standard.
In claim 24, the phrase “the control unit” lacks antecedent basis rendering the claim scope uncertain. None of claims 1, 22, or 23 recite a control unit.
In claim 26, the phrase “convention manner” is relative and renders the claim indefinite. Reasonable artisans will differ on what constitutes “conventional manner” without an objective standard.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
For fee calculating purposes, Applicant's claim 22 was initially determined to be a dependent claim because of its reference to claim 1 (MPEP §608.01(n) II.). However, claim 22’s reference to claim 1 simply functions as a cross reference. The reference to claim 1 is not phrased so as the curb module assembly of claim 22 further limits the curb module of claim 1. Instead claim 22 is phrase as: Claim 22 is drawn to a curb module assembly that has at least two curb modules as recited in claim 1.
While a dependent claim is required to make an express reference to a prior claim from which it depends (35 U.S.C. §112 (d)/4th paragraph), it does not follow that reference to another/prior claim indicates the claim is intended to be a dependent claim.
Therefore, Applicant is required to cancel the claim, or amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or rewrite, in unequivocal terms, the claim in independent form.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected for their dependency from claim 22.
Claims 25-26 and claims 27-30 are rejected under the same rationale as above.
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, 2, 6-8, 10, 11, 14-16, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2569786 A to Nicholas et al. (“Nicholas”).
As to independent claim 1, a curb module (BRI: “curb module” is interpreted to mean any unit integrated into or at the curb/roadside that provides vehicle charging functionality. This includes flush mounted or recessed roadside units consistent with the specification. See Nicholas’s teaching at Abstract. Nicholas teaches “kerbside box” for EV charging that is installed at the curb and flush with the pavement surface. Nicholas teaches each box is installed flush to an adjoining surface (e.g., curb, kerb). ) comprising a base body, the base body having a cavity which is surrounded by walls of the base body ( Abstract, 4:1-2. 6:11-13. Nicholas’s kerbside box itself is the base body, and its interior (where the universal connector and cables reside) is the cavity. The walls of Nicholas’s box surround that interior space (e.g., the box’s sides and lid enclose the connector and cables). Thus, Nicholas teaches a base body with a cavity as claimed, even though it refers to it as a “box”.), wherein: a charging device is provided in the cavity (BRI: “charging device” is the equipment that enables charging of an EV. Abstract, 6:11-13, 7:20-23. Nicholas teaches the box contains the necessary charging hardware/interfaces within its interior. Nicholas’s box may include connectivity to an inductive charging unit 12, indicating an inductive charging element may be built into the box. Additionally, Nicholas teaches power and data cables are terminated in the box with a universal connector. In other words, the box’s cavity includes a charging interface that connects to either an external charging post or an inductive pad. These internal components constitute the charging functionality within the box.), the charging device comprises at least one transmission unit (Abstract. Nicholas teaches the universal connector 10 (and alternatively the inductive coupling capability) provide the interface through which electricity leaves the box to reach an external charger or vehicle.), and the at least one transmission unit of the charging device is configured in such a way that energy transmission to an external consumer coupled thereto is possible via said transmission unit (BRI: This limitation requires when an external device (such as an electric vehicle or its charging receptacle) is connected to the curb module’s transmission unit, the unit can send power to that device. Abstract: Nicholas teaches the box connects with the vehicle to provide power to charge the vehicle.).
As to claim 2, the curb module according to claim 1, wherein the transmission unit is an inductive transmission unit, which is capable of generating a magnetic field for inductive energy transmission in at least one transmission area over at least a partial section of one of the provided walls of the base body (Abstract: inductive charging unit 12 works by creating a magnetic field for power transfer to a vehicle parked adjacent to the kerbside box 9.).
As to claim 6, the curb module according to claim 1, wherein the walls of the base body completely enclose the cavity (Fig. 1: 9).
As to claim 7, the curb module according to claim 1, wherein the base body of the curb module is formed in one piece or is formed from a plurality of partial elements which are detachably connected to one another by suitable means (The phrase “suitable means” invokes § 112 (f). Specification refers to screws, bolts. Fig. 1: 9, or Fig. 2.).
As to claim 8, the curb module according to claim 1, wherein the curb module is in the form of a high curbstone (See Fig. 1: 9 is flush with height of curb depicted and constitutes “high”.).
As to claim 10, the curb module according to claim 1, wherein at least one transmission unit is arranged entirely within the cavity of the base body and is designed to generate said magnetic field through the corresponding wall of the base body (8:5-6. Inductive charging unit 12 is positioned entirely within the cavity of the base body. Because the inductive unit is within the base body, it inherently emits magnetic field through a wall of the base body in order to wirelessly couple to a vehicle receiver positioned in a transmission area outside the box.).
As to claim 11, the curb module according to claim 1, wherein: at least one transmission unit is arranged entirely within the cavity of the base body and that wall over which the corresponding transmission area is provided has an opening at the respective partial section, and
the opening is closed by a cover (See analysis for claim 10 for similarly recited features. 4:1-2, 7:25-30. Nicholas teaches the box has an opening at its top surface (a wall of the base body), the opening allows access to the universal connector 10 and potentially the inductive unit, the lid is a cover that seals the opening when the box is not in use.).
As to claim 14, the curb module according to claim 1, wherein at least one transmission unit is designed as an inductive transmission unit (8:5-6. Kerbside box 9 includes a transmission unit that is designed as inductive charging unit.) and is configured such that the magnetic field generated in the respective transmission area is strong enough to enable sufficiently strong energy transmission for charging a battery of an at least partially electrically driven vehicle (1:25-30. The purpose of the kurbside box (including the inductive charging unit) is to transfer power to charge an EV. It is inherent the inductive charging unit is configured to be sufficiently strong to charge a battery of the EV.).
As to claim 15, the curb module according to claim 1, wherein: the charging device comprises a coupling unit, and the coupling unit comprises an input connector via which the charging device can be connected to an external power supply (7:20-22. Cables (4,5) are coupling interfaces and are routed into the box to power the charger unit 13. Because the external cables terminate inside the box to power the charging unit it implies the existence of an input connector.).
As to claim 16, the curb module according to claim 14, wherein: the coupling unit further comprises at least one output connector through which the charging device can be connected to external devices (7:10-29. Kerbside boxes include cables to facilitate power and data transfer to and from the terminal and vehicle. This implies a coupling unit and output connector such as wiring interface and termination.), and the at least one output connector is designed to be connected to the input connector of another curb module via a connection line (3:24-25, 7:10-29. Multiple curb modules are connected in series or parallel to enable the exchange of power and data. These connections are inherently though input and output connectors.).
As to claim 22, a curb module assembly comprising: at least two curb modules according to claim 1 (3:24-25: multiple kerbside boxes.), and the at least two curb modules are coupled to one another via corresponding connecting lines in such a way that an exchange of energy and/or information is possible between them (3:24-25, 5:15-23. Kerbside boxes linked by wiring for power and data exchange.).
As to claim 23, the curb module assembly according to claim 22, wherein: the curb module assembly comprises at least one transmission curb module (1:30-2:2: terminal functions as a transmission curb module.), and the respective transmission curb module either has a cable passage for the passage of a corresponding connecting line (1:30-2:2. Terminal is connected the kerbside box to provide power and data exchange, thus the connection inherently include a cable passage.), which connects the at least two curb modules to one another (“which” separated by commas indicates a non-restrictive clause. In any event, 3:24-25, 5:15-23. Kerbside boxes linked by wiring for power and data exchange.), or a corresponding connecting line is provided in the respective transmission curb module, and the connecting line provided has coupling elements at its two ends, via which a connection to the curb modules can be made (1:30-2:2. Terminal is connected the kerbside box to provide power and data exchange, thus the connection inherently includes terminal at two ends to enable the connection.).
As to claim 24, the curb module assembly according to claim 22, wherein the control unit of at least one of the curb modules is designed to also control the components of other curb modules connected to said curb module (BRI: “control unit of at least one of the curb modules” does not necessarily require the control unit to be physically included in the curb module. 8:25-9:19. Terminal includes CPU and control components designed to control kerbside boxes components through data and power transfer and activation.).
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 1, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0213843 to Nishio et al. (“Nishio”) in view of Nicholas.
As to independent claim 1, Nishio shows a module [fig. 1, elements 10-30, 41-45; fig. 2: modules 10-30, 41-45 adjacent to building; ¶0042: charge and discharge stations 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 … installed on the parking lot.] comprising: a base body (Figs. 1 and 13: the rectangular shaped stations 41-45), the base body having a cavity (interior space of stations 41-45) which is surrounded by walls (walls which create the rectangular shaped stations 41-45) of the base body; wherein a charging device (¶0075: The charge and discharge stations 41-45 have respective conversion circuits …) is provided in the cavity (interior of 41-45), the charging device (¶0075: The charge and discharge stations 41-45 have respective conversion circuits …) comprises at least one transmission unit (¶0075: charge and discharge the respective batteries mounted on the electric-powered automobiles 51-55; ¶0076: report information …. charging and discharging …), and the at least one transmission unit of the charging device (¶0075: charge and discharge the respective batteries mounted on the electric-powered automobiles 51-55) is configured in such a way that energy transmission (¶0075: charge and discharge the respective batteries mounted on the electric-powered automobiles 51-55) to an external consumer (fig. 2, automobiles 51-55) coupled thereto is possible via said transmission unit (¶0075: charge and discharge the respective batteries mounted on the electric-powered automobiles 51-55; ¶0076: report information …. charging and discharging …).
Nishio discloses installing the charging modules on a base provided on the ground of a parking lot adjacent to a parking space (¶ 0053, 0057). However, Nishio does not explicitly disclose the charging module being a “curb module”, specifically, wherein the module structure is placed on or at a curb.
Nicholas teaches vehicle charging infrastructure including a charging module designed for placement at a curb (Abstract: kerbside box 9 and charger unit 13 installed at the kerbside. See also page 7.). Nicholas explicitly teaches that the charger unit 13 is “formed to the kerbside” (page 8) to provide power to a vehicle (page 1, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the charging module of Nishio to be placed on or near the curb to act as a curb module, as taught by Nicholas. The motivation for doing so would be to provide convenient electric vehicle charging access directly adjacent to roadside parking spaces without taking up additional pedestrian or roadway space, thereby utilizing existing boundary infrastructure as taught by Nicholas.
As to claim 25, Nishio shows: a charging station (Nishio fig. 1, elements 10-30, 41-45; figs. 2, 6-9) for charging at least partially electrically driven vehicles (F) (Nishio fig. 2, automobiles 52-55), wherein:
the charging station (Nishio fig. 1, elements 10-30, 41-45; figs. 2, 6-9) comprises a switch box (figs. 6-9, elements 30, 32, 33, 37; ¶0065: breakers 103, 104 and 111-115) which is connected to a power supply network (figs. 6-9, commercial power supply; power monitoring unit 80), the charging station (Nishio fig. 1, elements 10-30, 41-45; figs. 2, 6-9) comprises at least one curb module (Nishio fig. 1, elements 10-30, 41-45) according to claim 1, the at least one curb module (Nishio fig. 1, elements 10-30, 41-45) is coupled to the switch box (figs. 6-9, elements 30, 32, 33, 37; ¶0065: breakers 103, 104 and 111-115) in such a way that all of the curb modules (fig.7, elements 10-20, 41-45) can be supplied with electrical energy (i.e. charging) via the switch box (figs. 6-9, elements 30, 32, 33, 37; ¶0065: breakers 103, 104 and 111-115).
As to claim 26, Nishio shows: wherein the curb modules (fig. 1, elements 10-30, 41-45; fig. 2: modules 10-30, 41-45 adjacent to building) are laid in a conventional manner along a roadway and/or parking area (Nishio ¶0042: charge and discharge stations 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 … installed on the parking lot).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas in view of US Pub. No. 20130119929 to Partovi (“Partovi”).
Nicholas teaches the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 3 depends, but does not explicitly teach the charging device includes more than one separate transmission unit in different transmission areas of the base body.
Before the invention was filed, it was well known in the art to utilize multi-coil arrangements dividing a base into multiple charging sections, and the charging art already deployed stations with multiple connectors in one unit. Partovi, for example, teaches multiple inductive transmission coils housed in spatially separated regions of a common base (Fig. 40), wherein each coil generates its own magnetic field to form separate transmission areas that independently enable energy transfer to a receiving device and the coils operate simultaneously or selectively to power one or more devices depending on position (¶ 0075, 0097).
It would have been obvious to modify Nicholas’s charging device to include multiple spatially distributed transmission coils as taught by Partovi to improve charging alignment, or user flexibility.
As to claim 4, the curb module according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of transmission units are designed to enable identical and/or different energy transmission rates in the respective transmission areas (This is a tautological limitation because logically the transmission rates can only exist in one of two states: identical or different. In any event, see Partovi at ¶ 0075, 0097, 0102.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas in view of US Patent No. 8796990 to Paparo et al. (“Paparo”).
Nicholas teaches the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 5 depends, but does not teach a marker indicating the position of a corresponding transmission area.
One of ordinary skill recognizes a marker to be a typical feature to facilitate charging practicality that is ubiquitous in the art. Paparo, for example, utilizes indicator lights to guide a vehicle to the proper charging position (Fig. 6: 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nicholas’s kurbside box to implement marker that indicate the position of a transmission area, as is known in the art, to facilitate charging practicality, such as charging alignment.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas in view of DE 102009024721 A1 to Bienek (“Bienek”). Bienek’s citations below refer to the English translation provided.
Nicholas does not explicitly teach the curb module is a least partially from concrete, plastic, or is formed from natural stone, as required by claim 9.
Bienek teaches charging stations flush mounted to the curb (¶ 0018), and embedding the charging station with concrete (¶ 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nicholas’s kurbside box to be embedded in concrete to help it withstand vehicle impact, weather, and street conditions, and to keep aesthetic uniformity with typical curb construction materials.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas in view of Partovi.
Nicholas does not explicity teach the kurbside box has a positioning device to position and hold an external recipient in a corresponding transmission area.
Such alignment features are known and typical in wireless EV charging environments. See, for example, Partovi at ¶ 0070.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented in Nicholas’s kurbside box visual and physical means to assist a user in aligning the vehicle in the kurbside box’s transmission area. This implementation provides precise alignment between the charger and receiver.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas in view of Partovi.
Nicholas teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach internal control unit in the charging device as claimed.
Partovi teaches controller 102 regulates energy transfer between the transmitter and receiver coils (Fig. 1, ¶ 0076), the controller communicates with sensors, receives input on vehicle position, battery status, etc., and adjusts the power transmission accordingly (¶ 0036, 0042). Furthermore, the controller may be integrated with communication interface and includes logic for safety, feedback, and system monitoring.
One of ordinary skill recognizes Nicholas teaches a curb module housing a charging unit, and Partovi teaches that inductive charging system, such as Nicholas, benefit from having a control unit to manage charging, detect vehicle presence, adjust output, and ensure safety.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to integrate Partovi’s control architecture into Nicholas’s curb-based charger to ensure proper energy delivery, manage safety, and interface with external systems – particularly given Nicholas already includes data communication lines.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas in view of Partovi.
Nicholas does not explicitly teach the kurbside box includes a communication interface as required by claim 18.
Partovi teaches a communication interface to transmit and receive signals from other charging components and external devices (¶ 0069, 0070, Fig. 1: charger and receiver “Communication & Control”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nicholas’s kurbside box to include Partovi’s communication interface to enable monitoring, coordination, and control of charging behavior—particularly because Nicholas already discloses data line for communication.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0039378 to Heyne et al. (“Heyne”).
Nicholas does not explicitly teach the charging device comprises a buffer storage for at least temporary storage of electrical energy.
Heyne teaches a charging station having a buffer storage element included which charges at low grid power and then can output high power for vehicle charging (¶ 0011).
One of the ordinary skill in the art recognizes Nicholas already provides the curb charger with charging capability, and the straightforward combination with Heyne provides a curb charger with local buffer storage. The combination yields improved curbside charging by adding a battery inside the charger to provide load leveling or backup power in the event of a disruption.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas in view of Partovi.
Nicholas does not teach explicitly teach the curb module has a status indicator, or its specific position on the curb module.
One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes status indicators to be typical features of charging stations. Partovi, for example, teaches implementing status indicators in the charger to visually indicate to a user the status of charging or power. Furthermore, it would be understood that positioning of the status indicator is limited to portions of a device where it must be visible to a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a modified Nicholas to include a status indicator that would be visible to a user as is known in the art to convey information to a user. The positioning of the status indicator would necessarily be somewhere on the curb face where the user is expected to interact with the curb (“the immediate vicinity thereof”).
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas in view of Partovi.
Claim 27 is directed to operating a curb module. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes claim 27 recites a generic charging methodology applied to a curb module.
At the time the invention was filed its was known in the art to utilize a controller that monitors and adjusts power flow, communicate with vehicle and sensors, and select charging parameters bases on received input. See, for example, Partovi, at ¶ 0069, 0070, 0076,0092, 0094, 0102-0105. Specifically, Partovi teaches retrieving vehicle identification, battery state, alignment, etc. On the basis of this information, Partovi determines charging level and duration, manages safety, and start and stops charging. These teachings are generally known and implemented in art in a wireless EV charging context, and correspond to the three steps claimed.
Partovi does not explicitly apply the methodology to a curb module.
Nicholas, however, provides the curb integrated charging form factor recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the methodology of wireless EV charging as known in the art to Nicholas’s kurbside box to implement a predictable and known method in the art that improves efficiency, safety, and adaptability of Nicholas’s kurbside box.
As to claim 28, the method according to claim 27, wherein the first to third steps of the method are carried out again from the beginning at specific intervals and/or in response to a specific triggering event, in order to adapt the charging strategy to any changed conditions or information (Partovi: ¶ 0104).
As to claim 29, the method according to claim 27, wherein the retrieved information comprises at least information on a current state of charge of the device(s) to be charged, a prioritization of the corresponding charging processes, an intended charging duration and/or an electrical power available at the corresponding curb module (Partovi: ¶ 0069).
As to claim 30, the method according to claim 27, wherein the determination of the suitable charging strategy is carried out centrally for the entire curb module or for all curb modules provided (Nicholas: 9:9-12 and Partovi: ¶ 0069, 0070, 0076,0092, 0094, 0102-0105. Nicholas teaches central control infrastructure. Partovi discloses dynamic charging strategy based on real-time inputs. The combination teaches a consolidated and optimized charging methodology across kurbside boxes to coordinate and improve load balancing, scheduling, and system level optimization.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and amended to overcome any applicable § 112 rejection.
Claim 12 would allowable if amended in the manner above because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a curb module or curb module assembly having all the features recited in claim 12 and all the features of base claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner SURESH MEMULA whose telephone number is (571)272-8046, and any inquiry for a formal Applicant initiated interview must be requested via a PTOL-413A form and faxed to the Examiner's personal fax phone number: (571) 273-8046. Furthermore, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner via email (suresh.memula@uspto.gov) on the condition the communication is pursuant to and in accordance with MPEP §502.03 and §713.01. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9am-6pm. 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 (i.e., central fax phone number) 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.
/SURESH MEMULA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851