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 § 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 1, 2, 7, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20240239216) in view of Fournier (US 20170129355).
Regarding claim 1, Salter teaches a system, comprising: a dispenser of a vehicle charger, the dispenser configured to provide a cable (shown in figure 1 item 181 defined as a charger providing cable 185); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled with memory and the dispenser, the one or more processors (paragraph [0021] discloses wherein processors are coupled with the dispenser. Paragraph [0016] teaches wherein a memory is included within the controller)
configured to: detect a characteristic of a vehicle (paragraph [0022] teaches wherein communication circuitry of the vehicle allows an exchange of data between the charging station and the vehicle. Paragraphs [0025]-[0026] teaches wherein various sensors are included in the vehicle, this data may be exchanged with the charging station via control system 14. Paragraph [0035] teaches wherein data is exchanged with the vehicle system and the charger);
determine, based at least in part on the characteristic of the vehicle, an amount of force to apply to the cable (paragraph [0035] teaches wherein vehicle data is exchanged between the vehicle and the charger, including data that is the basis for adjusting force, interpreted as plyability of a charging cable) ; and
provide an instruction to cause the dispenser to apply the amount of force to the cable (paragraph [0056] teaches wherein a request to adjust the force or plyability sent and received, and the charging station adjusts the force according to the data received).
Salter teaches a system which receives information from the vehicle and the user to adjust a useability component within a charging cable, defined as the plyability or flexibility in which the charging cable may be used. Salter does not explicitly teach wherein a force is adjusted.
Fournier teaches wherein a force is adjusted within a charging cable (defined in paragraph [0023] wherein a counterweight 28 may be mounted to the mobile pulley 24 to calibrate the tension in the cable 6 and, thus, adjust the cable retraction force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter reference with the charging system of the Fournier so that the charging cable is not damaged by cord twisting and resting on the ground.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Fournier reference in paragraph [0020] wherein preventing the cable from damage is taught.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Salter figure 1 shows a system which communicates vehicle information to a charger 181
PNG
media_image2.png
438
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fournier Figure 4A shows a pulley charger cable system which adjusts the force on the cable
Regarding claim 2, Salter teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to: detect, via a sensor, the characteristic comprising at least one of a type of the vehicle or an orientation of the vehicle (shown in figure 1 items 16, 199, 130, 131, 195, and 175, defined in paragraph [0031] as a plurality of sensor which communicate information regarding various states, including orientation of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, Salter teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to: determine the amount of force with which to dispense the cable responsive to an indication to dispense the cable for a charging session with the vehicle (paragraph [0048] teaches wherein the force or plyability of a cable is adjusted after receiving a request for charging).
Regarding claim 14, Salter teaches a method (shown in figure 2 item 200),
comprising: detecting, by one or more processors coupled with memory, a characteristic of a vehicle (figure 2 step 202 shows detecting and displaying a vehicle characteristic such as the battery charge level);
determining, by the one or more processors based at least in part on the characteristic of the vehicle, an amount of force to apply to a cable (figure 2 steps 216, determines a value of how to adjust the force or plyability of the cable); and
providing, by the one or more processors, an instruction to cause a dispenser to apply the amount of force to the cable (paragraph [0056] teaches wherein a request to adjust the force or plyability sent and received, and the charging station adjusts the force according to the data received).
Salter teaches a system which receives information from the vehicle and the user to adjust a useability component within a charging cable, defined as the plyability or flexibility in which the charging cable may be used. Salter does not explicitly teach wherein a force is adjusted.
Fournier teaches wherein a force is adjusted within a charging cable (defined in paragraph [0023] wherein a counterweight 28 may be mounted to the mobile pulley 24 to calibrate the tension in the cable 6 and, thus, adjust the cable retraction force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter reference with the charging system of the Fournier so that the charging cable is not damage by cord twisting and resting on the ground.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Fournier reference in paragraph [0020] wherein preventing the cable from damage is taught.
Regarding claim 18, Salter teaches a vehicle charger (shown in figure 1 item 181 defined as a charger providing cable 185),
comprising: a dispenser configured to provide a cable (paragraph [0021] discloses wherein processors are coupled with the dispenser. Paragraph [0016] teaches wherein a memory is included within the controller); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled with memory and the dispenser, the one or more processors configured to: detect a characteristic of a vehicle (paragraph [0022] teaches wherein communication circuitry of the vehicle allows an exchange of data between the charging station and the vehicle. Paragraphs [0025]-[0026] teaches wherein various sensors are included in the vehicle, this data may be exchanged with the charging station via control system 14. Paragraph [0035] teaches wherein data is exchanged with the vehicle system and the charger);
determine, based at least in part on the characteristic of the vehicle, an amount of force to apply to the cable (paragraph [0035] teaches wherein vehicle data is exchanged between the vehicle and the charger, including data that is the basis for adjusting force, interpreted as plyability of a charging cable); and
provide an instruction to cause the dispenser to apply the amount of force to the cable (paragraph [0056] teaches wherein a request to adjust the force or plyability sent and received, and the charging station adjusts the force according to the data received).
Salter teaches a system which receives information from the vehicle and the user to adjust a useability component within a charging cable, defined as the plyability or flexibility in which the charging cable may be used. Salter does not explicitly teach wherein a force is adjusted.
Fournier teaches wherein a force is adjusted within a charging cable (defined in paragraph [0023] wherein a counterweight 28 may be mounted to the mobile pulley 24 to calibrate the tension in the cable 6 and, thus, adjust the cable retraction force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter reference with the charging system of the Fournier so that the charging cable is not damage by cord twisting and resting on the ground.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Fournier reference in paragraph [0020] wherein preventing the cable from damage is taught.
Regarding claim 19, Salter teaches the vehicle charger of claim 18, comprising: the one or more processors to detect, via a sensor, the characteristic comprising at least one of a type of the vehicle or an orientation of the vehicle (shown in figure 1 items 16, 199, 130, 131, 195, and 175, defined in paragraph [0031] as a plurality of sensor which communicate information regarding various states, including orientation of the vehicle) .
Claims 3, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20240239216) (Salter) in view of Fournier (US 20170129355) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of McNally (US 20150343912) in view of Salter (US 20240025361) (Salter ‘361) .
Regarding claim 3, Salter in view of Fournier teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach comprising the one or more processors to: determine, based at least in part on the characteristic, a length of the cable to couple the vehicle charger with the vehicle; and determine the amount of force based at least in part on the length of the cable.
McNally teaches comprising the one or more processors to: determine, based at least in part on the characteristic, a length of the cable to couple the vehicle charger with the vehicle (paragraph [0058] teaches wherein a processor, interpreted as controller 123, determines a length of a cable to enable a charging connection to be established).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter in view of the Fournier references with the charging system of the McNally so that the charging cable is easier for the user to operate.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the McNally reference in paragraph [0003] wherein determining a length provides a convenience to user.
Salter, Fournier and McNally do not explicitly teach determining the amount of force based at least in part on the length of the cable.
Salter (‘361) teaches determining the amount of force based at least in part on the length of the cable (paragraph [0064] teaches wherein a strain gauge is used to determine the force applied to a charging cable and it correlates with the length of the charging cable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter, Fournier, and McNally references with the charging system of the Salter (‘361) so that charging cord is easy to use at a variety of lengths.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Salter (‘361) reference in paragraph [0003] wherein determining a length provides a convenience to user.
PNG
media_image3.png
392
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
McNally figure 1 shows a charging cable system which adjusts the force or tension of the charging cable
PNG
media_image4.png
447
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Salter (‘361) teaches a cable management system for a vehicle charging system
Regarding claim 16, Salter and Fournier teaches the method of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach comprising: determining, by the one or more processors based at least in part on the characteristic, a length of the cable to couple the vehicle charger with the vehicle; and determining, by the one or more processors, the amount of force based at least in part on the length of the cable.
McNally teaches comprising the one or more processors to: determine, based at least in part on the characteristic, a length of the cable to couple the vehicle charger with the vehicle (paragraph [0058] teaches wherein a processor, interpreted as controller 123, determines a length of a cable to enable a charging connection to be established).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter in view of the Fournier references with the charging system of the McNally so that the charging cable is easier for the user to operate.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the McNally reference in paragraph [0003] wherein determining a length provides a convenience to user.
Salter, Fournier and McNally do not explicitly teach determining the amount of force based at least in part on the length of the cable.
Salter (‘361) teaches determining the amount of force based at least in part on the length of the cable (paragraph [0064] teaches wherein a strain gauge is used to determine the force applied to a charging cable and it correlates with the length of the charging cable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter, Fournier, and McNally references with the charging system of the Salter (‘361) so that charging cord is easy to use at a variety of lengths.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Salter (‘361) reference in paragraph [0003] wherein determining a length provides a convenience to user.
Regarding claim 20, Salter and Fournier teach the vehicle charger of claim 18, but does not explicitly teach comprising the one or more processors to: determine, based at least in part on the characteristic, a length of the cable to couple the vehicle charger with the vehicle; and determine the amount of force based at least in part on the length of the cable.
McNally teaches comprising the one or more processors to: determine, based at least in part on the characteristic, a length of the cable to couple the vehicle charger with the vehicle (paragraph [0058] teaches wherein a processor, interpreted as controller 123, determines a length of a cable to enable a charging connection to be established).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter in view of the Fournier references with the charging system of the McNally so that the charging cable is easier for the user to operate.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the McNally reference in paragraph [0003] wherein determining a length provides a convenience to user.
Salter, Fournier and McNally do not explicitly teach determining the amount of force based at least in part on the length of the cable.
Salter (‘361) teaches determining the amount of force based at least in part on the length of the cable (paragraph [0064] teaches wherein a strain gauge is used to determine the force applied to a charging cable and it correlates with the length of the charging cable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter, Fournier, and McNally references with the charging system of the Salter (‘361) so that charging cord is easy to use at a variety of lengths.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Salter (‘361) reference in paragraph [0003] wherein determining a length provides a convenience to user.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20240239216) (Salter) in view of Fournier (US 20170129355) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Salter (US 20240025361) (Salter ‘361)
Regarding claim 4, Salter teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach comprising the one or more processors to: perform a lookup in a data repository with the characteristic to determine a length of the cable to couple the vehicle charger with the vehicle; and set the amount of force based on the length of the cable.
Salter (‘361) teaches comprising the one or more processors to: perform a lookup in a data repository with the characteristic to determine a length of the cable to couple the vehicle charger with the vehicle; and set the amount of force based on the length of the cable (paragraph [0064] teaches wherein a strain gauge is used to determine the force applied to a charging cable and it correlates via a lookup table with the length of the charging cable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter, Fournier, and McNally references with the charging system of the Salter (‘361) so that charging cord is easy to use at a variety of lengths.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Salter (‘361) reference in paragraph [0003] wherein determining a length provides a convenience to user.
Regarding claim 17, Salter teaches the method of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach comprising: identifying, by the one or more processors via a sensor, a second amount of force with which the cable is pulled from the dispenser; and increasing, by the one or more processors, the amount of force applied to the cable to reduce the second amount of force.
Salter (‘361) teaches identifying, by the one or more processors via a sensor, a second amount of force with which the cable is pulled from the dispenser; and increasing, by the one or more processors, the amount of force applied to the cable to reduce the second amount of force (paragraph [0064] teaches wherein a strain gauge is used to determine the force applied to a charging cable and it correlates with the length of the charging cable. A strain gauge may detect a plurality of forces, pulls or tension with a cable. In response to the strain gauge, the length may be adjusted to reduce the applied force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter, Fournier, and McNally references with the charging system of the Salter (‘361) so that charging cord is easy to use at a variety of lengths.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Salter (‘361) reference in paragraph [0003] wherein determining a length provides a convenience to user.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20240239216) (Salter) in view of Fournier (US 20170129355) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Matsui (US 20240246439).
Regarding claim 5, Salter and Fournier teach the system of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach comprising: the one or more processors to determine, based at least in part on the characteristic and via a model trained with machine learning, the amount of force.
Matsui teaches wherein one or more processors to determine, based at least in part on the characteristic and via a model trained with machine learning, the amount of force (defined in paragraph [0047] wherein vehicle characteristics are determined by a model trained with machine learning such as a neural network ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter and Fournier references with the charging system of the Matsui reference so that the user may easily maneuver the charging cord to attach to the electric vehicle.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Matsui reference in paragraph [0001] wherein the system provides ease to the user.
PNG
media_image5.png
414
633
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Matsui teaches a vehicle charging system with charging cable managment
Regarding claim 10, Salter in view of Fournier teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the dispenser comprises: a spool controlled by a motor configured to apply the amount of force to the cable.
Matsui teaches wherein the dispenser comprises: a spool controlled by a motor configured to apply the amount of force to the cable (defined in paragraph [0018] wherein The cable holding unit may include a spool and an actuation mechanism (for example, a servo motor)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter and Fournier references with the charging system of the Matsui reference so that the user may easily maneuver the charging cord to attach to the electric vehicle.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Matsui reference in paragraph [0001] wherein the system provides ease to the user.
Claims 6, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20240239216) (Salter) in view of Fournier (US 20170129355) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Salter (US 20240025361) (Salter ‘361) .
Regarding claim 6, Salter and Fournier teaches the system of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach comprising the one or more processors to: identify a force profile comprising a plurality of amounts of force that map to lengths of cable dispensed.
Salter (‘361) teaches one or more processors to: identify a force profile comprising a plurality of amounts of force that map to lengths of cable dispensed (paragraph [0064] teaches wherein a strain gauge is used to determine the force applied to a charging cable and it correlates via a lookup table to map the length of the charging cable to the force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter, Fournier, and McNally references with the charging system of the Salter (‘361) so that charging cord is easy to use at a variety of lengths.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Salter (‘361) reference in paragraph [0003] wherein determining a length provides a convenience to user.
Regarding claim 9, Salter in view of Fournier teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach comprising the one or more processors to: identify, via a sensor, a second amount of force with which the cable is pulled from the dispenser; and increase the amount of force applied to the cable to reduce the second amount of force.
Salter (‘361) teaches one or more processors to: identify, via a sensor, a second amount of force with which the cable is pulled from the dispenser; and increase the amount of force applied to the cable to reduce the second amount of force (paragraph [0064] teaches wherein a strain gauge is used to determine the force applied to a charging cable and it correlates with the length of the charging cable. A strain gauge may detect a plurality of forces, pulls or tension with a cable. In response to the strain gauge, the length may be adjusted to reduce the applied force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter, Fournier, and McNally references with the charging system of the Salter (‘361) so that charging cord is easy to use at a variety of lengths.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Salter (‘361) reference in paragraph [0003] wherein determining a length provides a convenience to user.
Regarding claim 17, Salter in view of Fournier teaches the method of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach comprising: identifying, by the one or more processors via a sensor, a second amount of force with which the cable is pulled from the dispenser; and increasing, by the one or more processors, the amount of force applied to the cable to reduce the second amount of force.
Salter (‘361) teaches identifying, by the one or more processors via a sensor, a second amount of force with which the cable is pulled from the dispenser; and increasing, by the one or more processors, the amount of force applied to the cable to reduce the second amount of force (paragraph [0064] teaches wherein a strain gauge is used to determine the force applied to a charging cable and it correlates with the length of the charging cable. A strain gauge may detect a plurality of forces, pulls or tension with a cable. In response to the strain gauge, the length may be adjusted to reduce the applied force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter, Fournier, and McNally references with the charging system of the Salter (‘361) so that charging cord is easy to use at a variety of lengths.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Salter (‘361) reference in paragraph [0003] wherein determining a length provides a convenience to user.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20240239216) (Salter) in view of Fournier (US 20170129355) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Adachi (US 20160059718).
Regarding claim 8, Salter and Fournier teach the system of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach comprising: the one or more processors to modify the amount of force responsive to an angle with which the cable is dispensed and a length of the cable that is dispensed.
Adachi teaches wherein one or more processors to modify the amount of force responsive to an angle with which the cable is dispensed and a length of the cable that is dispensed (paragraphs [0038] and [0040] teaches wherein an angle is determined, interpreted as a bending radius. When the bend radius determined, the force or tensile state of the charging cable is changed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter and Fournier reference with the charging system of the Adachi so that bending damage to the charging cable is prevented.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Adachi reference in paragraph [0008] wherein the charging cable is prevented from bending damage.
PNG
media_image6.png
300
440
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Adachi figure 1 shows a charging cable management
Regarding claim 12, Salter in view of Fournier teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach comprising the one or more processors to: detect that a plug of the cable is connected to the vehicle; and lock a length of the cable responsive to the detection that the cable is connected to the vehicle.
Adachi teaches one or more processors to: detect that a plug of the cable is connected to the vehicle (paragraphs [0009] and [0051] teaches wherein the connection of the cable is detected); and
lock a length of the cable responsive to the detection that the cable is connected to the vehicle (paragraph [0031] wherein the lock is enabled when it is connected to the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter and Fournier reference with the charging system of the Gilchrest so that bending damage to the charging cable is prevented.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Adachi reference in paragraph [0005] wherein the charging cable is prevented from bending damage.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20240239216) (Salter) in view of Fournier (US 20170129355) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Gilchrest (US 20220355687).
Regarding claim 11, Salter in view of Fournier teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the dispenser comprises: a clamp configured to apply the amount of force via friction to the cable.
Gilchrest teaches wherein the dispenser comprises: a clamp configured to apply the amount of force via friction to the cable (shown in figure 4 item 340 and figure 4 item 425 defined as a clamp).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter and Fournier reference with the charging system of the Gilchrest so that bending damage to the charging cable is prevented.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Adachi reference in paragraph [0005] wherein the charging cable is prevented from bending damage.
PNG
media_image7.png
447
507
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Gilchrist teaches a vehicle charger with a clamping function on the charging cable management device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 20240239216) (Salter) in view of Fournier (US 20170129355) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Cross (US 20250353393).
Regarding claim 13, Salter in view of Fournier teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach comprising the one or more processors to: receive an indication to retract the cable; and provide an instruction to cause the dispenser to retract the cable at a predetermined speed.
Cross teaches one or more processors to: receive an indication to retract the cable; and provide an instruction to cause the dispenser to retract the cable at a predetermined speed (paragraphs [0045] and [0104] – [0106] teaches wherein the cable may retract and the cable speed is controlled by a drive cable system which controls the retraction and extraction at a predetermined speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable system of the Salter and Fournier reference with the charging system of the Cross reference so that the cable does not become damaged during retraction and space is saved within the charger.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Adachi reference in paragraph [0003] wherein the charging cable is spatially efficient.
PNG
media_image8.png
293
469
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Cross figure 3 shows a charging cable which retracts and extends, and the speed is controlled to a predetermined speed.
Regarding claim 15, Salter teaches the method of claim 14, comprising: detecting, by the one or more processors via a sensor, the characteristic comprising at least one of a type of the vehicle or an orientation of the vehicle (shown in figure 1 items 16, 199, 130, 131, 195, and 175, defined in paragraph [0031] as a plurality of sensor which communicate information regarding various states, including orientation of the vehicle).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210155105 A1 Cord Reel Thermal Management Alford; John Et Al.
US 20240100976 A1 Charging The Battery Of An Electric Vehicle Atlasman
US 20250236192 A1 Adaptive Tension Cairns; Paul
US 20240075830 A1 Charging Cable Erni; Christoph
US 20180264957 A1 Electric Cable Fuehrer; Thomas Et Al.
US 20200317071 A1 Charging Cable System With Cooling Hakenberg; Peter
US 20170330644 A1 Charging Cable Jung; Yun Jae Et Al.
US 20130203558 A1 Tension Systems Lemos; Robert F. Et Al.
US 11689008 B1 Wire Tensioning System Nichols; Robert Et Al.
US 20240066990 A1 Reducing Realized Sound Levels Salter; Stuart C. Et Al.
US 20240055873 A1 Energy Storing Sleppy; Joseph Et Al.
US 20180186315 A1 Cable Clamp For A Charging Cable Terzis; Price B.
US 20230084987 A1 Charging Zoon; Wiebe
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS B PACHECO whose telephone number is (571)272-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:30.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
ALEXIS BOATENG PACHECO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/ALEXIS B PACHECO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859