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 § 102
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 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.
Claim 1, 7-11. 16-17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parmley (US 5,847,537).
As to claims 1 and 23, Parmley discloses in figures 1-13, a container adapted to hold a power source [see figure 1, element (12) is considered as a housing to house a power source] , the container comprising [see Col. .2, lines 30-32]:
a plurality of frame elements defining a plurality of corners [see figure 1, the housing (12) has corners 70,70A, 70B] and sides of the container, wherein the plurality of frame elements define an interior adapted for receiving the power source and an exterior disposed of in an environment in which the container is placed [as shown in figure 1, the frames creates side walls, front and rear walls, the structure defines interior pat for housing the power source; see elements 30,32, 38 ad 36; see also figures 8 and 12] ; at least one power source located in the interior; and a plurality of electrical connections provided on the exterior; wherein said electrical connections provide for connectivity to the power source [the emperor part of the housing (12) has power source such as solar charge panel ; see figure 8 and also Col. 4, lines 39-45].
.As to claim 7,Parmley discloses in figures 1-13, wherein said container comprises a shipping container [see Col. 2, lines 41-43].
As to claim 8, Parmley discloses in figures 1-13, wherein said frame elements comprise side panels, a container cargo-access end [side walls 30,32, front 38 an rear 36 , see figures 8 a and 12].
As to claim 9, Parmley discloses in figures 1-13, wherein the corners comprise eight corner posts for each corner of the container [see figure 2]r.
As to claim 10, Parmley discloses n figures 1-13, wherein the container is of a standard size and wherein the standard size is an ISO standard container size [see Col. 2, lines 41-43; a basic ISO shopping container disclosed].
As to claim 11, Parmley discloses in figures 1-13, wherein the electrical connections are provided on a control panel mounted on the exterior of the container [see figures 1-2, and Col. lines 16-17; the low switch device (22) controls the charging unit (28)].
As to claim 16, Parmley discloses in figures 1-13, least one power source in electrical communication with the at least power source secured to the interior of the container [the electrical connectors are electrically communicated with the power source] .
As to claim 17, Parmley disclose in figure 7, wherein said power source comprises at least one solar panel mounted to an exterior of the container [solar panel (62) is mounted on the roof; see Col. 4, lines 64-66]..
As to claim 21, Parmley discloses in figures 1-13, wherein said plurality of electrical connections is adapted to provide power from the at least one power source secured to the interior of the container to recipient devices [charging devices, 22, 22A, see also Col. 3, lines 60-64 and Col. 4, lines 4-7].
As to claim 22, Parmley discloses in figures 1-13, wherein said recipient devices comprise an electric car [see figure 1, element 20B], a scooter, an electric bicycle, and others [see Col. 3, lines 60-64 and Col. 4, lines 4-7].
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.
Claims 12, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Parmley in view of Bhat et al. (US 2020/0086747 A), hereinafter Bhat.
As to claim 12, Parmley discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein at least one power source comprises a rechargeable power storage device.
Bhat discloses in figures 1-3, wherein at least one power source comprises a rechargeable power storage device [battery power supply is located inside the housing to provide power; see ¶0045].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to have rechargeable power source in Bhat’s apparatus as taught by Bhat to allow for continual use and operation of the container when solar power is low
As to claim 14, Parmley discloses in figures 1-13, a plurality of cables [cables 130, Fig ].
Paremley does not disclose explicitly, a plurality of cables having plugs wherein said cables provide a connection between the container and a ship conveying the container.
Bhat discloses in figures 1-3, a similar container with a power source [container 26 with housing 34 holding power source 42, Fig 3; "a storage battery 42" para [0042]; when connected in parallel as seen in Fig 10; "In such an example, the delivery vehicle could carry the portable chargers 26, 26a, 26b while they are connected to a common DC bus. Multiple converters could be used when charging the portable chargers 26, 26a, and 26b from the DC bus to ensure that that the storage batteries 42 appropriately share the power from the DC bus." par [0076]]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added in Parmely’s apparatus as taught by Bhat a connection between the container and with any conveying the container to allow for desired recharging by the container to the desired vehicle or shop.
As to claim 19, Parmley discloses in figures 1-13, a thermal management system.
Bhat discloses in figure s 1-3, a thermal management system [see figure 3, and also ¶0046]..
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have added a thermal management system in Parmley’s apparatus as taught by Bhat to ensure the container and power source does not overheat or get damaged during extended use.
As to claim 20, Parmley in combination with Bhat discloses, wherein the thermal management system comprises a series of convection directing channels to move coolant around the at least one power source [ ¶ 0046].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Parmley in view of Bhat in view of Stanfield (US 2020/0366104A1).
As to claim 13, Parmley discloses in figures 1-13, a storage battery [battery 42]
However, neither Parmley nor Bhat discloses, wherein said power storage device comprises a modular reactor for fuel cells, a regenerative ammonia battery, a methanol fuel cell, a liquid- metal battery, a liquid electrolyte flow battery, a solid-state battery, and a vanadium redox battery, or a combination thereof.
Stanfield discloses in figure 7, wherein the battery is a fuel cell [ the fuel/electric station 10 comprises multiple fuel/electric pumps 12" para [0083]; Fig 1; battery 19, Fig 7; "an internal Li-ion battery 19 (e.g. battery, batteries, power storage capacitors, fuel cells)" para [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to use combination of power sources such as a fuel cell in Parmely’s apparatus as tough by Stanfield to allow for safe and efficient recharging of the battery to ensure prolonged charging of the vehicles that come to the charging station.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Parmley in view of Bhat, further in view of Gillett (US 2013/0009469).
As to claim 15, neither Parmley nor Bhat discloses, wherein said connection between the container and the ship extends to a propulsion system operating in the ship.
Gillett discloses in figure 1, wherein said connection between the container and the ship extends to a propulsion system operating in the ship [see claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the power supply of Parmley with ships or vessels as taught by Gillett in order to allow the ship charges its power or operates the main power supply of the ship or vessel fails.
Claims 18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Parmley in view of in view of Gillett (US 2013/0009469).
As to claim 18, Gillett discloses in figures 1-4, comprises at least one wind turbine and wherein opposing sides of said container is open to airflow from the exterior of the container to create motion in the at least one wind turbine [see ¶006, ¶0040 figure 4 and also ¶].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use power wind in Parmley’s apparatus as taught by in order to extend battery life when the main power supply fails.
. As to claim 26, Gillett discloses in figures 1-4, wherein the plurality of containers provide power to a vessel carrying the container [see claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the power supply of Parmley with ships or vessels as taught by Gillett in order to allow the ship charges its power or operates the main power supply of the ship or vessel fails.
. Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Parmley.
As to claims 24 and 25, Parmley discloses power container or house.
However, Parmely does not disclose explicitly, wherein individual containers comprising the plurality of containers are connected in series/parallel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have plurality of power house connected in series or parallel to provide desire power for plurality of loads. since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use different connections of plurality of power houses in order to provide desire power output for any load, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 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:
For Claim 2: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: a primary compartment housed in the interior of the container wherein said primary compartment is defined by a secondary flooring, a secondary road-side panel, a secondary curb-side panel, a front-end panel, cargo-access doors, and a secondary roof assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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 A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights