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 .
Non-Final Office Action
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
(a) Claim date: 04/02/2026 (in response to restriction requirement).
(b) Priority date: 03/20/2023 (filing date)
(c) Field: Mounting concrete base for charging station having various configuration of mounting hole and cable passage-way.
Double Patenting
(Non-statutory type, 35 U.S.C. 101)
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 obviousness-type 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA1969).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The subject matter in the instant Application are similar to the subject matter in copending Application and substantially read on the claims in the copending Application and vice versa, the claims in the copending Application is similar to the claims in the instant Application and read on the claims in the instant Application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter in the instant Application are similar to the subject matter in copending Application and substantially read on the claims in the copending Application and vice versa, the claims in the copending Application is similar to the claims in the instant Application and read on the claims in the instant Application.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Claims listed in the Table below of Present Applications are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness- type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of Co-pending Application.
Claim Comparison Table
Present Application
(18/123562)
Co-pending Application
(17/701282)
Example, 1, 21,
Example, 1+4
Overall, 1-12, 21-27.
Overall, 1-20.
Obviousness Analysis (Graham v. John Deere Co analysis):
The claim limitation may not match 1-to-1 matching, while comparing claim by claim between the two applications. However, the overall coverage is identical between the two sets of the claims. For example, claim (1+4) of cop-ending application has the same coverage as claim 1 or 21 of present applicant. Similar comparison is applicable for the remaining sets of claims.
Therefore, rejected claims are 1-12, 21-27.
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, 21-23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the prior art of record “Flynn” <US 20210245614 A1>.(As to claim 1, 21, Flynn discloses):
1. (Original) A mount for a charging station, the mount comprising [abs: “charging station includes an elevated platform”]:
a precast concrete base having a bottom surface, a top surface, a front surface, a rear surface, a first side surface, a second side surface, and a base height, the base height being the distance from the bottom surface to the top surface [0002: “portable platform includes a top plate having a top surface, bottom surface, and opposing sides, wherein the top plate sized to receive at least one electrical component for charging an electric vehicle”];
PNG
media_image1.png
668
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a through hole extending from the bottom surface to the top surface, the through hole being centrally located on the precast concrete base [Fig. 8, element 56];
a plurality of non-through holes extending upward from the bottom surface toward the top surface, each of the plurality of non-through holes having a depth that is less than the base height [Fig. 8, non-through holes are pointed by arrow],
each of the plurality of non-through holes being adapted and configured to enable a user to increase the depth of said each of the plurality of non-through holes to convert the plurality of non-through holes to a plurality of bollard mounting holes, the non-through holes being sized for receiving bollards [0002: “FIG. 2, the protective bollards 24 are cylindrical, but it is contemplated that other-shaped bollards may be used to protect the EV components”]; and
wherein the front surface, the rear surface, and the first and second side surfaces each comprise a thin-walled knockout portion adapted to be removed to create a cable passageway in the respective surface [0031: “the flange (not shown) is a single piece of material with an upper surface that covers the main channel and an opening in the flange to permit conduit and cabling to pass therethrough.”].
(As to claim 2, Flynn discloses):
2. (Original) The mount of claim 1, wherein the bottom surface comprises a plurality of feet [Fig. 3, feeds are pointed by arrow] and,
PNG
media_image2.png
392
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
when the thin-walled knockout portions are removed from the precast concrete base, the cable passageways are between adjacent feet of the plurality of feet [Fig. 3, 26, thin-walled knockout portion adjacent to the feet], and
wherein the cable passageways and the through hole are sized and positioned to enable an electric cable to extend through the through hole and one of the plurality of cable passageways [0031: “the flange (not shown) is a single piece of material with an upper surface that covers the main channel and an opening in the flange to permit conduit and cabling to pass therethrough.].
(As to claim 22, Flynn discloses):
22. (Original) The mount of claim 21 wherein the top surfaces of both of the first and second mount portions comprise a raised area adjacent the through hole and corresponding to the shape of the through hole [Fig. 2, 26, 28 are raised area, corresponding through holes are shown in Fig. 8],
PNG
media_image3.png
636
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the raised area being adapted and configured to prevent water from flowing into the through hole when a charging station is connected to the mount [Fig. 2][It would have been obvious to one in ordinary skilled in the art at the time of this invention that the raised level would help prevent wafer from flowing into the through holes].
(As to claim 23, Flynn discloses):
23. (Original) The mount of claim 22 wherein the raised area of both of the first and second mount portions comprise a plurality of bolt holes arranged in a first bolt pattern, the first bolt pattern corresponding to the mounting holes of a charging station [Fig. 2 and 3].
Allowable Subject Matter
The following claims would be allowable if all rejections/objections cited in this office action (if any) are overcome and rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.The reason for this allowance is: the claimed subject matter could not have been anticipated or obviated using any prior arts.Allowable claims are: 3-12 and 24-27.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the form PTO-892 are not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.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.Contact information:Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED ALAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1507, email address: [mohammed.alam@uspto.gov] and fax number (571) 270-2507. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM to 4PM (EST), Monday to Friday. 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./Mohammed Alam/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights