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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the anchoring means including a detachable adapter element must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes that the only anchoring means shown in the drawings are in the prior art figures. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 18, line 6, “mowing” appears to be a misspelling of “moving”.
Page 20, line 23, one instance of “not” should be deleted to remove the double negative description.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “charging station” should be inserted before “mounting device” in line 2 for the purpose of consistency with line 1 and the depending claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 13 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear which elements are meant by “them” in line 3 because a plurality of different elements are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “them” to mean “the first main part and the second main part”. Examiner notes that this interpretation is consistent with claim 14. Claim 14 is rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 7 and 12-18 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burke (US 2014/0117018).
Regarding claim 1, Burke discloses a charging station mounting device (e.g. 10, Fig. 1), the charging station being arranged to charge a vehicle, the mounting device comprising: a foundation member configured to be installed below ground level (e.g. 12/14, Fig. 1, paragraph 0028); and anchoring means by which a charging station is mountable to the foundation member, the anchoring means including a detachable adapter element configured to fit the charging station to the foundation member (e.g. 16, Fig. 1, wherein the plate is capable of supporting a mounted charging station); wherein the foundation member includes a first main part and a second main part that are adapted to be assembled together to form the foundation member (e.g. two halves shown in Fig. 1 separated at seam 18, paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 2, Burke further discloses that the foundation member, when assembled, has the general form of a hollow cylinder, each one of the first and the second main parts having the general form of a half cylinder (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0028, wherein the shape is considered “generally” cylindrical based on the rounded corners); and wherein each one of the first and the second main parts comprises a connection flange for securing the first and the second main parts together (e.g. 22, Fig. 1, paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 4, Burke further discloses that each one of the first and the second main parts comprises a plurality of external, axial strengthening ribs (e.g. 26, Fig. 1) and a plurality of external, radial strengthening ribs (e.g. 24, Fig. 1); and each one of the first and the second main parts comprises a plurality of internal, axial strengthening ribs (e.g. 58 and/or 60, Fig. 3) and a plurality of internal, radial strengthening ribs (e.g. 50 and 67, Fig.’s 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 7, Burke further discloses that the first and the second main parts are of the same shape (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0028); and the first and the second main parts are manufactured by molding (e.g. paragraph 0028). Burke does not explicitly disclose that the molding is injection molding, however this is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Therefore, the injection molded parts are not considered patentable over the molded parts of Burke because the end product is the same.
Regarding claim 12, Burke further discloses an anchoring bar (e.g. 33, Fig. 1A); wherein the foundation member comprises means for holding respective ends of the anchoring bar (e.g. Fig. 1A, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 13, Burke further discloses that the first main part and the second main part are adapted to hold the respective ends of the anchoring bar between them when assembled (e.g. Fig. 1A, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 14, Burke further discloses that the first main part and the second main part, when assembled, form bar holders that hold the anchoring bar between the first main part and the second main part (e.g. Fig. 1A, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 15, Burke further discloses that at least one of the first main part and the second main part comprises a support interface (e.g. 58, Fig. 3) for protection unit receivers that are adapted to hold a protection unit (e.g. 60, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Burke further discloses that the foundation member comprises: a base (e.g. 68, Fig. 5); a rim having an upper surface that forms a top edge of the foundation member (e.g. 54, Fig.’s 1 and 5); and a wall on which the strengthening ribs are formed (e.g. 46, Fig. 3, paragraph 0033); wherein the rim is solid and has a greater thickness than the wall (e.g. Fig. 3 wherein the rim thickness is greater than the wall thickness in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 17, Burke further discloses that a peripheral top edge portion of the foundation member comprises an annular recess that receives the adapter element (e.g. 50, Fig. 5), and wherein the internal, axial strengthening ribs comprise upper ends that lie flush with the annular recess, such that the internal, axial strengthening ribs provide additional support to the adapter element (e.g. Fig. 5, paragraph 0037 wherein 58 extends to 50).
Regarding claim 18, Burke further discloses that the foundation member comprises a plurality of entry openings or holes for receiving an electric cable and/or cable pipe from a side of the charging station mounting device (e.g. shown but not labeled near the bottom of 10 in Fig.’s 1A and 8).
Claims 1, 2, 6, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heo (WO 2017/078206).
Regarding claim 1, Heo discloses a charging station mounting device (e.g. 1, Fig. 1), the charging station being arranged to charge a vehicle, the mounting device comprising: a foundation member configured to be installed below ground level (e.g. 10, Fig. 1); and anchoring means by which a charging station is mountable to the foundation member, the anchoring means including a detachable adapter element configured to fit the charging station to the foundation member (e.g. 20, wherein 21 is capable of supporting a mounted charging station); wherein the foundation member includes a first main part and a second main part that are adapted to be assembled together to form the foundation member (e.g. two halves of 10 similarly to the exploded view shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Heo further discloses that the foundation member, when assembled, has the general form of a hollow cylinder, each one of the first and the second main parts having the general form of a half cylinder (e.g. Fig. 5); and wherein each one of the first and the second main parts comprises a connection flange for securing the first and the second main parts together (e.g. 120, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Heo further discloses that the foundation member has the form of a hollow cylinder with a base (e.g. hollow cylinder 10 with base 30, Fig. 5), the base having a greater radial dimension than the cylinder, such that the base acts to hinder the charging station mounting device from moving when installed (e.g. Fig. 5); and wherein the base has the form of a polygon (e.g. Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Heo further discloses that at least one of the first main part and the second main part comprises a support interface for protection unit receivers that are adapted to hold a protection unit (e.g. 200, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Heo further discloses that the foundation member comprises a plurality of entry openings or holes for receiving an electric cable and/or cable pipe from a side of the charging station mounting device (e.g. 220, Fig. 2).
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (US 2014/0117018) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Paul et al (US 2017/0362840).
Regarding claim 9, Burke discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the first and the second main parts are made of plastic material (e.g. paragraph 0029) but Burke does not explicitly disclose that the plastic material comprises polypropylene (PP). Paul teaches a foundation member comprising plastic material comprising polypropylene (PP) (e.g. paragraph 0012). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a plastic material containing polypropylene as taught by Paul for the plastic material of Burke because such is a known material in the art and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Burke and Paul further discloses that the plastic material comprises rubber (e.g. Paul, paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Burke and Paul further discloses that the rubber is a blend of polypropylene (PP) and ethylene propylene diene terpolymer (PP-EPDM) (e.g. Paul, paragraph 0012).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678