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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the specification correct the spelling of “power cord”, i.e. Change from “power chord” to –power cord-- (seven instances).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Correct the spelling of “power cord” in claims 1, 4, 14, 15, 17 and 20, i.e. Change from “power chord” to –power cord--. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: The limitations of “a system to manage a power chord from the EV charger” (claim 14) and “coiling element configured to coil the power chord in a roll” (claim 15) are 112(f) limitations. However, the Specification does not disclose the structure that performs the functions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 14-15 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.
Claim limitations ““a system to manage a power chord from the EV charger” (claim 14) and “coiling element configured to coil the power chord in a roll” (claim 15)” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-3, 5-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Beelen WO 2017/061863 (hereinafter Van Beelen).
Regarding Claim 1, Van Beelen teaches an EV charger module (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-2, Element 1; Title, and Page 9, Lines 20-25, “underground power supply system”), comprising: an enclosure (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-2, Element 10; Page 9, Lines 30-32, “underground casing”) having a plurality of sidewalls defining an enclosure perimeter (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-4, Element 10 and Fig. 5, Element 110) configured to contain an EV charger (Van Beelen, Fig. 5, Element 101; Abstract, Lines 1-5), a permeable bottom (Van Beelen, Figs. 3-4; Page 4, Lines 1-6. Where the drain holes are illustrated but not separately identified by labels.), and a cover (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-4, Element 20 and Fig. 5, Element 120) configured to provide external access to said enclosure and at least one outlet (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-4, Element 22 and Fig. 5, Element 122; Page 10, Lines 27-29) for a power chord from the EV charger to extend therefrom to an external environment (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-4, Elements 50 and 51; Page 9, Lines 23-25, and Page 10, Line 35 through Page 11, Line 1); a power feedthrough disposed in at least one of the sidewall or bottom such that power from an external power source may be introduced therein (Van Beelen, Fig. 5, Element 139; Page 13, Lines 34-37, and Page 14, Lines 1-3); a waterproof internal compartment disposed within the enclosure (Van Beelen, Fig. 5, Element 126) and positioned such that the power feedthrough terminates therein (Van Beelen, Fig. 5, Page 14, Lines 20-34); and an electrical box (Van Beelen, Fig. 5, Element 160; Page 13, Lines 24-37, and Page 14, Lines 1-5, “second airtight compartment”) disposed within the internal compartment (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-5, Element 126; Page 13, Lines 24-25, “first airtight compartment) and disposed to interface with the power feedthrough and configured to adapt the power from the power feedthrough such that it is electrically compatible with the EV charger (Van Beelen, Figs. 5-6, Element 130; Page 13, Line 34 through Page 14, Line 19, “control unit”).
Regarding Claim 2, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the waterproof compartment comprises a top wall, a plurality of side walls, such that only a bottom portion of the waterproof compartment is open (Van Beelen, Figs. 3-4; Page 10, Lines 23-24).
Regarding Claim 3, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 2/1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of side walls or the top wall are openable to provide access to the waterproof compartment (Van Beelen, Figs. 3-4, Element 14; Page 11, Lines 7-10, “removeable wall element”).
Regarding Claim 5, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the module further comprises a relay configured to control the flow of power to the electrical box (Van Beelen, Figs. 3-4, Element 30; Page 11, Lines 11-14, “control unit”. Although the applicant has used the term “relay” which has a typical meaning in the art of a “switching device”, the applicant has defined the term “relay” to refer to the control of the claimed charging system. Therefore the “control unit” of Van Beelen, which as well known in the art comprises a main power relay as well as sensors and other electronic componentry, is equivalent to the claimed “relay”.).
Regarding Claim 6, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 5/1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the relay further comprises at least one power monitoring element configured to record at least one of either the voltage or the current (Van Beelen, Page 6, Lines 3-6).
Regarding Claim 7, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 5/1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the relay further comprises a communication element configured to communicate the status of the module to an external user (Van Beelen, Figs. 3-4, Element 34; Page 11, Lines 12-13, “communication unit”.
Regarding Claim 8, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 7/5/1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the communication element is configured to communicate through a connection selected from the group consisting of a hardwired cable, Wi-Fi, cellular connection, a satellite connection, or a radio signal (Van Beelen, Page 5, Lines 26-35).
Regarding Claim 9, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 7/5/1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the communication element is configured to control the power to the electrical box via a signal from the external user (Van Beelen, Page 5, Lines 19-32).
Regarding Claim 10, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 5/1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the relay (Van Beelen, Fig. 5, Element 130) is disposed within the waterproof internal compartment (Van Beelen, Fig. 5, Element 160; Page 13, Line 24) between the power feedthrough and the electrical box (Van Beelen, Page 13, Lines 20-37).
Regarding Claim 11, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 5/1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the relay (Van Beelen, Figs. 3-4, Element 30) is disposed external to the enclosure (Van Beelen, Figs. 3-4, Element 10).
Regarding Claim 12, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the enclosure is waterproof (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-5; Page 2, Lines 16-20).
Regarding Claim 13, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 10/5/1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the enclosure is configured to be installed underground such that the cover is flush with a top surface of the ground (Van Beelen, Page 9, Lines 30-32).
Regarding Claim 16, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the cover further comprises a locking element configured to secure the cover when in a closed position (Van Beelen, Fig. 3, Elements 33/35; Page 11, Lines 15-32).
Regarding Claim 17, Van Beelen teaches an EV charger module (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-2, Element 1; Title, and Page 9, Lines 20-25, “underground power supply system”), comprising: an enclosure (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-2, Element 10; Page 9, Lines 30-32, “underground casing”) having a plurality of sidewalls defining an enclosure perimeter (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-4, Element 10 and Fig. 5, Element 110) configured to contain an EV charger (Van Beelen, Fig. 5, Element 101; Abstract, Lines 1-5), a permeable bottom (Van Beelen, Figs. 3-4; Page 4, Lines 1-6. Where the drain holes are illustrated but not separately identified by labels.), and a cover (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-4, Element 20 and Fig. 5, Element 120) configured to provide external access to said enclosure and at least one outlet (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-4, Element 22 and Fig. 5, Element 122; Page 10, Lines 27-29) for a power chord from the EV charger to extend therefrom to an external environment (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-4, Elements 50 and 51; Page 9, Lines 23-25, and Page 10, Line 35 through Page 11, Line 1); a power feedthrough disposed in at least one of the sidewall or bottom such that power from an external power source may be introduced therein (Van Beelen, Fig. 5, Element 139; Page 13, Lines 34-37, and Page 14, Lines 1-3); a waterproof internal compartment disposed within the enclosure (Van Beelen, Fig. 5, Element 126) and positioned such that the power feedthrough terminates therein (Van Beelen, Fig. 5, Page 14, Lines 20-34); and an electrical box (Van Beelen, Fig. 5, Element 160; Page 13, Lines 24-37, and Page 14, Lines 1-5, “second airtight compartment”) disposed within the internal compartment (Van Beelen, Figs. 1-5, Element 126; Page 13, Lines 24-25, “first airtight compartment) and disposed to interface with the power feedthrough and configured to adapt the power from the power feedthrough such that it is electrically compatible with the EV charger (Van Beelen, Figs. 5-6, Element 130; Page 13, Line 34 through Page 14, Line 19, “control unit”); and a relay disposed within the internal compartment and configured to control the flow of power to the electrical box (Van Beelen, Figs. 3-4, Element 30; Page 11, Lines 11-14, “control unit”. Although the applicant has used the term “relay” which has a typical meaning in the art of a “switching device”, the applicant has defined the term “relay” to refer to the control of the claimed charging system. Therefore the “control unit” of Van Beelen, which as well known in the art comprises a main power relay as well as sensors and other electronic componentry, is equivalent to the claimed “relay”.).
Regarding Claim 18, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 17. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the waterproof compartment comprises a top wall, a plurality of side walls, such that only a bottom portion of the waterproof compartment is open (Van Beelen, Figs. 3-4; Page 10, Lines 23-24).
Regarding Claim 19, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 18/17. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of side walls or the top wall are openable to provide access to the waterproof compartment (Van Beelen, Figs. 3-4, Element 14; Page 11, Lines 7-10, “removeable wall element”).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Beelen WO 2017/061863 (hereinafter Van Beelen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roach et al. U.S. PGPub 2013/0213839 A1 (hereinafter Roach).
Regarding Claim 4, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the cover (Van Beelen, Fig. 4, Element 20) is pivotably connected to at least one of the sidewalls (Van Beelen, Fig. 4, Element 27; Page 12, Lines 9-14, “rotated around hinge”), but does not teach an anti-pinch cord gap material.
Roach, however, teaches wherein the cover is pivotably connected to at least one of the sidewalls (Roach, Fig. 1, Elements 212, “base walls” and 312, “lid walls”), and wherein at least one edge of the cover and the adjacent sidewall are lined with an anti-pinch cord gap material (Roach, Fig. 6a-6b, Element 750; Para. [0057], “closure seal”. Made up of “lid seal edge 316”.) such that the power chord can extend therethrough while the cover is in a closed position seated with the sidewalls of the enclosure (Roach, Fig. 6a-6b; Para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Van Beelen is silent as to the exact protection of the charging cable to prevent any type of pinching or crimping of the cable when the charging cover is closed, Van Beelen would inherently incorporate some type of conventional charging cable protection commonly understood in the art. The cable protection taught by Roach, for assuring the electrical cable is protected during closing of the cover, teaches one of the many conventional charging cable protection methods utilized in the art for assuring the electrical cable is protected during closing of the cover. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Roach, to employ charging cable protection within the charging system of Van Beelen.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Beelen WO 2017/061863 (hereinafter Van Beelen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonilla et al. U.S. PGPub 2020/0185897 A1 (hereinafter Bonilla).
Regarding Claim 14, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, but does not teach managing a power cord from the EV charger.
Bonilla, however, teaches wherein the enclosure further comprises a system to manage a power chord from the EV charger (Bonilla, Fig. 2; Para. [0017], Lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Van Beelen is silent as to whether or not some type of cable management is incorporated into the system, Van Beelen would inherently incorporate some type of conventional charging cable management commonly understood in the art. The cable management taught by Bonilla, for assuring the electrical cable is protected when not in use, teaches one of the many conventional charging cable protection methods utilized in the art for assuring the electrical cable is protected when not in use. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Bonilla, to employ charging cable management within the charging system of Van Beelen.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Beelen WO 2017/061863 (hereinafter Van Beelen) and Bonilla et al. U.S. PGPub 2020/0185897 A1 (hereinafter Bonilla) as applied to claims 14/1 above, and further in view of Seeling DE-102016112613-B4 (hereinafter Seeling).
Regarding Claim 15, The combined teaching of the Van Beelen and Bonilla references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 14/1, but does not teach the system includes a coiling element configured to coil the power chord in a roll.
Seeling, however, teaches wherein the system includes a coiling element configured to coil the power chord in a roll (Seeling, Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
176
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Excerpt from Seeling:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Van Beelen is silent as to whether or not some type of cable management is incorporated into the system, Van Beelen would inherently incorporate some type of conventional charging cable management commonly understood in the art. The cable management taught by Seeling, for assuring the electrical cable is protected when not in use, teaches one of the many conventional charging cable protection methods utilized in the art for assuring the electrical cable is protected when not in use. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Seeling, to employ charging cable management within the charging system of Van Beelen.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Beelen WO 2017/061863 (hereinafter Van Beelen) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Roach et al. U.S. PGPub 2013/0213839 A1 (hereinafter Roach).
Regarding Claim 20, The teaching of the Van Beelen reference discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 17. Furthermore, Van Beelen teaches wherein the cover (Van Beelen, Fig. 4, Element 20) is pivotably connected to at least one of the sidewalls (Van Beelen, Fig. 4, Element 27; Page 12, Lines 9-14, “rotated around hinge”), but does not teach an anti-pinch cord gap material.
Roach, however, teaches wherein the cover is pivotably connected to at least one of the sidewalls (Roach, Fig. 1, Elements 212, “base walls” and 312, “lid walls”), and wherein at least one edge of the cover and the adjacent sidewall are lined with an anti-pinch cord gap material (Roach, Fig. 6a-6b, Element 750; Para. [0057], “closure seal”. Made up of “lid seal edge 316”.) such that the power chord can extend therethrough while the cover is in a closed position seated with the sidewalls of the enclosure (Roach, Fig. 6a-6b; Para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Van Beelen is silent as to the exact protection of the charging cable to prevent any type of pinching or crimping of the cable when the charging cover is closed, Van Beelen would inherently incorporate some type of conventional charging cable protection commonly understood in the art. The cable protection taught by Roach, for assuring the electrical cable is protected during closing of the cover, teaches one of the many conventional charging cable protection methods utilized in the art for assuring the electrical cable is protected during closing of the cover. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Roach, to employ charging cable protection within the charging system of Van Beelen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jordan GB-2589326-A teaches an underground charging device with hinged cover and water management.
Dobie WO-2019122890-A1 teaches a curbside underground vehicle charger.
Walker WO-2021248180-A1 teaches a curbside underground vehicle charger.
Siems U.S. Patent 5,342,993 teaches a weather-proof floor outlet.
Dinh U.S. PGPub 2011/0240363 teaches a below surface weatherproof electrical box.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY D ROBBINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7585. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 6:00PM Tuesday-Saturday.
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.
/JERRY D ROBBINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859