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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination “for a charging station: are assumed to be a part of the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 4, In the case claim 4 depends on claims 1-2 “the door handle device” and “the at least one second coupling element” lack proper antecedent basis in the claims. For the purposes of examination claim 4 is assumed to depend on claim 3.
In regards to claim 5, In the case claim 5 depends on claims 1-3 “the door handle” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. For the purposes of examination claim 5 is assumed to depend on claim 4.
In regards to claim 6, in the case claim 6 depends on claims 1-3 “the door handle” and “the second coupling element” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. For the purposes of examination claim 6 is assumed to depend on claim 4.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected due to their dependencies on the rejected claims above.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: both instances of “the second coupling element” should read “the at least one second coupling element”. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flogaus US 4750569 A (hereinafter Flogaus) in view of Wang et al. CN 108544966 A (hereinafter Wang).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Flogaus teaches a housing , in particular for a charging station , comprising at least one cladding element (4) and a door element (8), whereby - the at least one cladding element has a door lock (see fig 3) comprising at least two locking elements (36, 54 and/or 56), whereby - the at least two locking elements are spaced apart from one another and are arranged on the at least one cladding element (see fig 1) so as to be capable of being rotated about a respective fastening element (40; note Col 3 line 62 – Col 4 line 6) by means of the respective fastening element ,whereby - on a first end of the respective locking element (see reference image 1), the at least two locking elements have a latching element (44; note Col 3 line 62 – Col 4 line 6), whereby - the at least two locking elements are mechanically connected to one another via at least one first rigid coupling element (58), whereby - the at least two locking elements can in each case be displaced between a release position and a locking position, whereby - the door element has at least two locking bolts (22; note Col 3 line 62 – Col 4 line 6), whereby - in the locking position, the at least two locking elements engage by means of the respective latching element with a respective locking bolt of the at least two locking bolts (see fig 4), so that the door element is fixed relative to the cladding element (see fig 4), and whereby - in the release position, the at least two locking elements release the respective locking bolt , so that the door element can be displaced relative to the cladding element (see fig 3).
However, Flogaus does not teach the housing is for a charging station.
Wang teaches a similar housing for a charging station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Flogaus’ housing be for a charging station in order to allow charging of electric vehicles (Wang: para 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Flogaus in view of Wang teaches housing the according to claim 1, whereby the at least one first rigid coupling element is in each case connected to a second end (see reference image 1) of the respective locking element , which is located opposite the first end of the respective locking element , whereby a first distance between the first end of the respective locking element and the assigned fastening element is in each case smaller than a second distance between the second end of the respective locking element and the assigned fastening element (see reference image 1).
In regards to claim 3, Flogaus in view of Wang teaches the housing the housing according to any one of the preceding claims, whereby - the at least one cladding element additionally has a door handle device (Flogaus: 34 and at least the slot for 34), whereby - at least one of the locking elements and the door handle device are mechanically connected to one another via at least one second rigid coupling element (Flogaus: 38), whereby - the at least one first coupling element and the at least one second coupling element are connected to one another in such a way that a translation of the at least one second coupling element effects a translation of the at least one first coupling element (Flogaus: see figs 3-4).
In regards to claim 4, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Flogaus in view of Wang teaches the housing according to any one of the preceding claims, whereby - the door handle device has a door handle (Flogaus: 34), whereby - the door handle is pivotably arranged in the door handle device (Flogaus: see figs 2-4), whereby - the door handle is connected to the at least one second coupling element in such a way that a pivoting of the door handle effects a translation of the at least one second coupling element (Flogaus: see figs 3-4).
In regards to claim 5, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Flogaus in view of Wang teaches the housing according to any one of the preceding claims, whereby the door handle can be displaced between a door release position (Flogaus: see fig 3) and a door locking position (Flogaus: see fig 4), whereby during a pivoting of the door handle from the door locking position into the door release position, the at least two locking elements are in each case rotated from the locking position into the release position (Flogaus: see fig 3; note Col 3 line 62 – Col 4 line 6).
In regards to claim 6, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Flogaus in view of Wang teaches the housing according to any one of the preceding claims, whereby the second coupling element is fastened to the door handle device in such a way that a point of articulation (50) of the second coupling element on the door handle device is arranged in a beyond dead center position when the door handle is arranged in the door locking position (Flogaus: see fig 4).
In regards to claim 7, Flogaus in view of Wang teaches a housing according to any one of the preceding claims.
However, Flogaus does not teach a charging station Wang teaches a charging station
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Flogaus’ housing include a charging station in order to allow charging of electric vehicles (Wang: para 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights