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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 October 2023 was filed before the mailing date of the first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 26 January 2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Foreign Patent Documents 1 and 3 do not have a concise explanation of relevance or English translation, as per 37 CFR 1.98(3). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willard (US 5299670 A) in view of Hall (US 11685277 B1).
In regards to claim 1, Hall teaches a cable management system
a drum (30) (Fig. 1), the drum including one or more slots (see annotated Fig. 2 below);
a mechanical wire (20, 21) (Fig. 3);
one or more tracks (see annotated Fig. 2 below) fixed in a spaced relation (col. 4, lines 31-32) to the drum (30) parallel to a rotational axis (see annotated Fig. 2) of the drum (30);
a guide (60) coupled to one or more tracks (as seen in Fig. 2), the guide (60) including one or more guide features (60a) (Fig. 1) for guiding the mechanical wire (20, 21) (Fig. 3) on or off one or more of the slots (as seen in Fig. 2), the guide (60) including a protrusion (60b) extending into one or more of the one or more slots (as seen in Fig. 2) to allow the guide (60) to slide laterally along the one or more tracks (col. 4, lines 29-31) in response to rotation of the drum (30) about the rotational axis so that the guide feature (60a) is aligned with different portions of the one or more slots (as seen in Fig. 2) as the drum (30) rotates; and
Willard does not teach the cable management system being for an electric vehicle charger; and a drive system for selectively rotating the drum in a first direction to retrieve the mechanical wire and a second direction to extend the mechanical wire.
Hall teaches the cable management system being for an electric vehicle charger (abstract, lines 1-2); and a drive system (124) (Fig. 3B) for selectively rotating (col. 7, lines 38-48) the drum (120) in a first direction to retrieve the mechanical wire (108) and a second direction to extend the mechanical wire (108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cable management system of Willard to include utilizing the system for an electric vehicle charger and a drive system for selectively rotating the drum as taught by Hall with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of enabling automatic control of the system (see Hall, col. 7, lines 22-24).
PNG
media_image1.png
202
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall above teaches the cable management system of claim 1, wherein the one or more slots (Willard, see annotated Fig. 2 above) include a first slot for receiving the mechanical wire (Willard, as seen in Fig. 2, the wire is in a slot separate from the protrusion 60b) and a second slot for receiving (Willard, as seen in Fig. 2, the protrusion 60b is in a separate slot from the wiring) the protrusion (60b) (Willard, Fig. 2) of the guide (60) (Willard, Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall above teaches the cable management system of claim 2, wherein the first slot and the second slot (Willard, see annotated Fig. 2 above) are separate helical slots (as seen in Willard, Fig. 2, the helical slots are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to be separate from one another due to a different portion of the cable being wound in each slot).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall above teaches the cable management system of claim 1, wherein the mechanical wire (20, 21) (Willard, Fig. 3) is
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the mechanical wire being a high molecular polyethylene wire with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the wire, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.07.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall above teaches the cable management system of claim 1, wherein the guide (60) (Willard, Fig. 1) further includes a curved portion (Willard, as seen in Fig. 1) having a profile corresponding to the profile of the drum (30, Willard, as seen in Fig. 1) and wherein the curved portion provides a housing (the housing that is formed by guide 60) that houses at least a portion (Willard, Fig. 1, the wire enters the housing of guide 60 through guide feature 60a) of the mechanical wire (20, 21) (Willard, Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall above teaches the cable management system of claim 8, wherein the curved portion houses a portion (Willard, Fig. 1, the wire enters the housing of guide 60 through guide feature 60a) of the mechanical wire (20, 21) (Willard, Fig. 3) immediately adjacent (Willard, as seen in Fig. 2, wire is fed through guide 60 into the slots in drum 30) to the one or more slots (Willard, as seen in Fig. 2) that is actively receiving the mechanical wire (20, 21) (Willard, Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall above teaches the cable management system of claim 1, wherein the guide (60) (Willard, Fig. 2) includes a pulley (61) (Willard, Fig. 2) in alignment with one of the one or more slots (Willard, as seen in Fig. 2) and wherein the pulley (61) (Willard, Fig. 2) directs the mechanical wire (20, 21) (Willard, Fig. 3) onto the one or more of the slots (Willard, as seen in Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall above teaches the cable management system of claim 1, further comprising a housing (40, 41) (Willard, Fig. 1) which houses at least the drum (30) (Willard, Fig. 1), the one or more tracks (Willard, see annotated Fig. 2 above) and the guide (60) and
Hall teaches a support (102) (Fig. 1) for maintaining the housing overhead of an operator of the electric vehicle charger (col. 2, lines 27-51, “charger base 102 may fixed to a variety of structures or objects depending on the location and/or support requirements of the system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cable management system of Willard to include a support for maintaining the housing overhead of an operator as taught by Hall with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the flexibility of the system to operate in various environments and scenarios (see, Hall, col. 2, lines 27-51). Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim(s) 4-5, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willard (US 5299670 A) in view of Hall (US 11685277 B1) and Kegel (US 20190074678 A1).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall above teaches the cable management system of claim 1,
Willard does not teach a sensor coupled to a drive system, and controlling a drive system based on an output of the sensor.
Kegel teaches a sensor (76) (Fig. 1) coupled to (para. [0016], lines 11-14) a drive system (20), and controlling a drive system (20) based on an output of the sensor (para. [0016], lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cable management system of Willard to include a sensor as taught by Kegel with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of enabling the system to operate consistently (see, Kegel, para. [0036], lines 1-3).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall and Kegel above teaches the cable management system of claim 4, wherein the sensor senses a position of the guide (Kegel, para. [0036], lines 13-19).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall above teaches the cable management system of claim 1, further comprising
Willard does not teach one or more winding state sensors configured to detect an amount of winding on the drum
Kegel teaches one or more winding state sensors (74, 76) (Fig. 1) configured to detect an amount of winding (para. [0038], lines 12-14) on the drum (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cable management system of Willard to include a sensor as taught by Kegel with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of enabling the system to operate consistently (see, Kegel, para. [0036], lines 1-3).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall and Kegel above teaches the cable management system of claim 15. wherein the winding state sensors (74, 76) (Kegel, Fig. 1) detect the amount of winding on the drum (Kegel, para. [0038], lines 12-14) by detecting a position of the guide (Kegel, para. [0036], lines 13-19).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall and Kegel above teaches the cable management system of claim 16, wherein the winding state sensors (74, 76) (Kegel, Fig. 1) include an optical sensor (Kegel, para. [0017], lines 15-16).
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willard (US 5299670 A) in view of Hall (US 11685277 B1) and Kuker (US 8727084 B1).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall above teaches the cable management system of claim 1, wherein the guide (60) (Willard, Fig. 1) includes
Willard does not teach an extension that extends over a portion of the one or more slots that is actively receiving the mechanical wire.
Kuker teaches an extension (col. 4, lines 18-20) that extends over a portion of the one or more slots that is actively receiving the mechanical wire (col. 4, lines 18-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guide of Willard to include an extension as taught by Kuker with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of protecting the system from environmental complications (see, Kuker, col. 4, lines 18-20).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Willard as modified by Hall and Kuker above teaches the cable management system of claim 10, wherein the extension (Kuker, col. 4, lines 18-20) contacts the mechanical wire (20, 21) (Willard, Fig. 3) to remove debris and snow (Kuker, col. 4, lines 18-20) from the mechanical wire (20, 21) (Willard, Fig. 3) prior to winding the mechanical wire (20, 21) (Willard, Fig. 3) on the drum (30) (Willard, Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 12, The cable management system of claim 10, wherein the extension is mounted near enough (Kuker, col. 4, lines 18-20, “along the top and/or bottom of the slot”) the drum (30) (Willard, Fig. 1) to restrain the mechanical wire (20, 21) (Willard, Fig. 3) from skipping slots.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 17 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 6. While the combination of Willard as modified by Hall and Kegel above teaches the cable management system of claim 4, Willard does not teach wherein the sensor is a terminal position sensor that senses a position based on detecting the presence of a magnet positioned at a terminal end of the mechanical wire. The examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the cable management system of Willard to meet the claimed limitations, furthermore, it would require an improper amount of hindsight reasoning, i.e., the modifications needed would require improperly modifying a secondary reference.
Thus, claim 6 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record, but is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 17. While the combination of Willard as modified by Hall and Kegel above teaches the cable management system of claim 16. Willard does not teach wherein the winding state sensors include a magnetic sensor and wherein the guide includes a magnet mounted on a surface at a position that allows the magnet to be sensed by the magnetic sensor when the guide is proximate the magnetic sensor. The examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the cable management system of Willard to meet the claimed limitations, furthermore, it would require an improper amount of hindsight reasoning, i.e., the modifications needed would require improperly modifying a secondary reference.
Thus, claim 17 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record, but is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Theiß (US 20220166203 A1) discloses a compact winding device for a flexible line.
Bianco (US 20180272880 A1) discloses an EVSE cable management system with ADA assist.
Tarasinski (US 20180215573 A1) discloses an arrangement for determining a spatial orientation of a line portion unwound from a cable drum.
Baumgartner (DE 102016223715 A1) discloses a charging station for electric vehicles with at least four charging modules and cable drums.
Hermey (US 20180026432 A1) discloses a line guide device having a movement sensor.
Lau (WO 2017221207 A1) discloses an overhead charging system with a cable management unit.
Jawidzik (US 9346653 B1) discloses a cord retracting reel device.
Zuber (US 20140305759 A1) discloses a cable storage device for a charging cable of an electric vehicle.
Bianco (US 20120048983 A1) discloses an overhead power cable management system.
Brandel (EP 2053008 A1) discloses a system for dispensing and retrieving a length of cable into/from a cable channel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615