DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 09/04/2025. Claim 21 was added. Claims 1 – 21 are currently pending in the application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carter (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0060685).
Regarding Claim 10, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
A battery charging cabinet (30), comprising:
a reinforced wall (double-walled walls of enclosure 32) defining an interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3);
a shelf (top shelf, as illustrated in Figure 3) disposed within the interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3) and dividing (as illustrated in Figure 3) the interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3) into at least a first portion (the portion above the top shelf, as illustrated in Figure 3) and a second portion (the portion below the top shelf, as illustrated in Figure 3);
an air inlet (64) disposed through (as illustrated in Figure 1) the reinforced wall (double-walled walls of enclosure 32) for airflow (airflow into 148 illustrated by air flow arrows in Figure 1) into (as illustrated in Figure 1) the first portion (the portion above the top shelf, as illustrated in Figure 3) at a first end (the right end, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the battery charging cabinet (30); and
an air outlet (62) disposed through (as illustrated in Figure 1) the reinforced wall (double-walled walls of enclosure 32) for airflow (airflow out of 147 illustrated by air flow arrows in Figure 1) out (as illustrated in Figure 1) of the second portion (the portion below the top shelf, as illustrated in Figure 3) at a second end (the left end, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the battery charging cabinet (30) opposite the first end (the right end, as illustrated in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
The reinforced wall (double-walled walls of enclosure 32) comprises a first wall later (36) and a second wall layer (32).
Regarding Claim 12, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
An air gap (gap illustrated between 34 and 36 in Figure 2) between the first wall layer (36) and the second wall layer (34).
Regarding Claim 14, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
A flame arrestor (“a suitable flash arrestor screen as are known to those skilled in the art”, Paragraph 0070) positioned inside or adjacent to (“each vent port 62, 64 can be equipped with a suitable flash arrestor screen”, Paragraph 0070; accordingly, the flash arrestor screen is disposed adjacent 62 and 64) at least (“each vent port 62, 64 can be equipped with a suitable flash arrestor screen as are known to those skilled in the art”, Paragraph 0070) the air inlet (64).
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 of this title, 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, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0060685) in view of Lattimore et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,342,004) and Cotton et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0234575).
Regarding Claim 1, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
A double-walled battery cabinet (30), comprising:
an outer cabinet wall (34);
an inner cabinet wall (36) spaced apart from (as illustrated in Figure 2) the outer cabinet wall (32) to form an insulating air gap (gap illustrated between 34 and 36 in Figure 2) between the inner cabinet wall (36) and the outer cabinet wall (34), the inner cabinet wall (36) defining an interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3);
an air convection port (62 or 64) disposed through (as illustrated in Figure 1) the outer cabinet wall (34) and the inner cabinet wall (36);
a flame arrestor (“a suitable flash arrestor screen as are known to those skilled in the art”, Paragraph 0070) positioned inside or adjacent to (“each vent port 62, 64 can be equipped with a suitable flash arrestor screen”, Paragraph 0070; accordingly, the flash arrestor screen is disposed adjacent 62 and 64) the air convection port (62 or 64);
a damper (50) positioned adjacent to (as illustrated in Figure 1, 50 is positioned fluidly adjacent to both 62 and 64) the air convection port (62 or 64),
a bias member (223, as illustrated in Figure 9) to bias (as described in Paragraph 0091) the damper (50) toward a closed position (closed position, Paragraph 0091);
a fusible link (157) to hold (as illustrated in Figure 9) the damper (50) in an open position (open position, Paragraph 0086), the fusible link (157) having a predetermined melting point (the melting temperature of 157) at which the bias member (223) causes (as described in Paragraph 0092, when the temperature of the air inside 30 is high enough to melt 157, 50 is closed) within the interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3) the damper (50) from the open position (open position, Paragraph 0086) to the closed position (closed position, Paragraph 0091).
However, Carter lacks showing the damper is horizontally-slidable, and a power outlet disposed inside the interior volume.
In the same field of endeavor of electrical enclosures, Lattimore teaches (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
It is known in the electrical enclosure (chassis, title) art for a damper (10) to be horizontally slidable (“slidable movement”, Abstract; as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3) to be disposed (as illustrated in Figure 1) over a port (the port at the top of 50, as illustrated in Figure 1), wherein the damper (10) is biased toward (via 35, as described in Col. 3, lines 30-65) a closed position (closed position, Col., 3, line 33) by a biasing member (35), wherein when a fusible link (40) exceeds a temperature (as described in Col, 3, lines 30-65), the damper (10) is closed (as described in Col. 3, lines 30-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the damper disposed adjacent the port taught Lattimore for the damper shown by Carter because it does no more yield predictable results of preventing the spread of fire from inside the enclosure to outside the enclosure, since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Placing the damper at the port prevents the fire from spreading outside of the enclosure by containing it within the enclosure, instead of within Carter’s conduits attached to the port.
In the same field of endeavor of cabinets, Cotton teaches (Figure 11):
It is known in the cabinet (cabinet, title) art for a power outlet (AC power strip, Figure 11) to be disposed inside (as illustrated in Figure 11, the AC power strip is disposed inside the cabinet between the hinges) the interior volume (the interior volume of the cabinet, in which the AC power strip is disposed, as illustrated in Figure 11).
Further, “the AC power strip may be used to power additional equipment in or around the cabinet, such as an on-board battery monitoring system”, Paragraph 0029.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the interior volume of the cabinet shown by Carter to include a power outlet, as taught by Cotton, to provide the benefit of powering additional equipment in or around the cabinet, such as a monitoring system.
Regarding Claim 2, Lattimore teaches (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
The bias member (35) comprises one or more spring members (35 is a spring, as illustrated in Figure 2) to bias (as described in Col. 3, lines 30-65) the damper (10) towards the closed position (closed position, Col., 3, line 33).
Regarding Claim 5, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
A door (38, 40) and a corresponding door jamb (52, 53, 54, 55) enclosing (as illustrated in Figure 3) the interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3); and
an intumescent seal (82, 83) disposed around (as described in Paragraph 0061, flanges 82 and 83 are disposed around 38 and 40) at least one of the door (38, 40) or the door jamb (52, 53, 54, 55).
Regarding Claim 7, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
The air convection port (64) comprises an air inlet (the air inlet of 64), and the double-walled battery charging cabinet (30) further comprises an additional air convection port (62) that includes an air outlet (the air outlet of 62).
Regarding Claim 9, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
At least one of feet or legs (as illustrated in Figure 1, 30 is supported on feet located beneath the cabinet) to support the double-walled battery charging cabinet (30) on a surface (the surface on which 30 is placed).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0060685), Lattimore et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,342,004), and Cotton et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0234575), as recited in Claim 1 above, further in view of Kingston (U.S. Patent No. 9,609,769).
Regarding Claim 3, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
A ventilation opening (opening of 148) positioned adjacent (as illustrated in Figure 1, 148 is fluidly adjacent 64) to the air convection port (64).
However, Carter lacks showing a screen positioned across the ventilation opening, the screen comprising a cored-out region for air flow through the screen.
In the same field of endeavor of electrical enclosures, Kingston teaches (Figure 1):
It is known in the electrical enclosure (12) art for a screen (“a screen may cover the ventilation openings 22 to reduce the possibility of foreign objects entering 12”, Col. 4, lines 28-30) to be positioned adjacent a ventilation opening (22), wherein the screen comprises a cored-out region (“the openings of the screen may be between approximately 0.5mm to 5 mm”, Col. 5, lines 30-32) for air flow through the screen (“a screen may cover the ventilation openings 22 to reduce the possibility of foreign objects entering 12”, Col. 4, lines 28-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ventilation opening shown by Carter to include a screen positioned across the ventilation opening, the screen comprising a cored-out region for air flow through the screen, as taught by Kingston, to reduce the possibility of foreign objects entering the cabinet.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0060685), Lattimore et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,342,004), and Cotton et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0234575), as recited in Claim 5 above, further in view of Stoller (U.S. Patent No. 6,164,369).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Carter, Lattimore, and Cotton teaches the claimed invention except the door comprises a first vent and a second vent and filter media disposed between the first vent and the second vent.
In the same field of endeavor of electrical enclosures, Stoller teaches (Figure 4):
It is known in the electrical enclosure (12) art for a door (37) to comprise a first vent (41) and a second vent (50), and a filter media (“openings 41 and 50 may be provided with a suitable mesh or filter screen of a desired type and size based on the ambient air conditions at the location of enclosure 12”, Col. 10, lines 13-17) disposed between (the mesh or filter screen is disposed fluidly between 41 and 50) the first vent (41) and the second vent (50).
Further, “as air is drawn through the plenum 38, it will cool the exterior surface 36 of door panel 33”, Col. 7, lines 48-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the door shown by Carter to include a first vent and a second vent and filter media disposed between the first vent and the second vent as taught by Stoller, to cool the exterior surface of the door panel.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0060685), Lattimore et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,342,004), and Cotton et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0234575), as recited in Claim 1 above, further in view of Bruski et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0097604).
Regarding Claim 8, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
A fan (149) associated with (as illustrated in Figure 1) the air convection port (62) has an associated fan (149).
However, Carter lacks showing the fan is disposed in the air convection port.
In the same field of endeavor of electrical enclosures, Bruski teaches (Figure 8):
It is known in the enclosure (10) art for a fan (70) to be disposed in (as illustrated in Figure 8, 70 is disposed in 30) in an outlet air convection port (30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the location of the fan shown by Carter to be disposed in the outlet air convection port, as taught by Bruski, so that the fan is disposed in a location that allows easier access for maintenance and repair to ensure proper operation of the cabinet.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0060685), as recited in Claim 10 above, in view of Lattimore et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,342,004).
Regarding Claim 13, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
A spring-loaded damper (50) positioned adjacent to (as illustrated in Figure 1, 50 is positioned fluidly adjacent to both 62 and 64) each of the air inlet (64) and the air outlet (62), the spring-loaded damper (50) being rotatable between open (open position, Paragraph 0086) and closed (closed position, Paragraph 0091) positions; and
a fusible link (157) to hold (as illustrated in Figure 9) the spring-loaded damper (50) in the open position (open position, Paragraph 0086) when the fusible link (157) is exposed (via 148) to temperatures (if the temperature of the air is less than the melting temperature of 157, 157 maintains 50 in the open position) in the interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3) that are less than a predetermined temperature (the melting temperature of 157).
However, Carter lacks showing the damper is slidable.
In the same field of endeavor of electrical enclosures, Lattimore teaches (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
It is known in the electrical enclosure (chassis, title) art for a damper (10) to be horizontally slidable (“slidable movement”, Abstract; as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3) to be disposed (as illustrated in Figure 1) over a port (the port at the top of 50, as illustrated in Figure 1), wherein the damper (10) is biased toward (via 35, as described in Col. 3, lines 30-65) a closed position (closed position, Col., 3, line 33) by a biasing member (35), wherein when a fusible link (40) exceeds a temperature (as described in Col, 3, lines 30-65), the damper (10) is closed (as described in Col. 3, lines 30-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the damper disposed adjacent the port taught Lattimore for the damper shown by Carter because it does no more yield predictable results of preventing the spread of fire from inside the enclosure to outside the enclosure, since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Placing the damper at the port prevents the fire from spreading outside of the enclosure by containing it within the enclosure, instead of within Carter’s conduits attached to the port.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0060685), as recited in Claim 10 above, in view of Cotton et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0234575).
Regarding Claim 15, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
The second portion (the portion below the top shelf, as illustrated in Figure 3) of the interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3) includes the bottom portion (the bottom portion of 30, as illustrated in Figure 3) of the battery cabinet (30).
However, Carter lacks showing the second portion includes a power outlet disposed within it.
In the same field of endeavor of cabinets, Cotton teaches (Figure 11):
It is known in the cabinet (cabinet, title) art for a power outlet (AC power strip, Figure 11) to be disposed inside (as illustrated in Figure 11, the AC power strip is disposed inside the cabinet between the hinges) the bottom portion (as illustrated in Figure 11) of the interior volume (the interior volume of the cabinet, in which the AC power strip is disposed, as illustrated in Figure 11).
Further, “the AC power strip may be used to power additional equipment in or around the cabinet, such as an on-board battery monitoring system”, Paragraph 0029.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the second portion of the cabinet shown by Carter to include a power outlet, as taught by Cotton, to provide the benefit of powering additional equipment in or around the cabinet, such as a monitoring system.
Claims 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0060685) in view of Bruski et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0097604), Lattimore et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,342,004), and Cotton et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0234575).
Regarding Claim 16, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
A battery cabinet (30), comprising:
an outer cabinet wall (34);
an inner cabinet wall (36) spaced apart from (as illustrated in Figure 2) the outer cabinet wall (32) to form an insulating air gap (gap illustrated between 34 and 36 in Figure 2) between the inner cabinet wall (36) and the outer cabinet wall (34);
a pair of doors (38, 40), wherein the inner cabinet wall (36) and the pair of doors (38, 40) enclose an interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3) within the battery cabinet (30);
a pair of air convection ports (62, 64) disposed through (as illustrated in Figure 1) the outer cabinet wall (34) and the inner cabinet wall (36) at opposing cabinet ends (as illustrated in Figure 1, 64 is on the right end of 30 and 62 is on the left end of 30) and at different heights (as illustrated in Figure 1, 64 is located near the top of 30 and 62 is located near the bottom of 30) within the interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3);
a fan (149) associated with (as illustrated in Figure 1) at least one of air convection port (62) of the pair of air convection ports (62, 64);
a flame arrestor (“a suitable flash arrestor screen as are known to those skilled in the art”, Paragraph 0070) positioned inside or adjacent to (“each vent port 62, 64 can be equipped with a suitable flash arrestor screen”, Paragraph 0070; accordingly, the flash arrestor screen is disposed adjacent 62 and 64) at least one (“each vent port 62, 64 can be equipped with a suitable flash arrestor screen as are known to those skilled in the art”, Paragraph 0070) of the pair of air convection ports (62, 64);
a damper (50) positioned adjacent to (as illustrated in Figure 1, 50 is positioned fluidly adjacent to both 62 and 64) each air convection port (62 and 64) of the pair of air convection ports (62, 64), the damper (50) being biased (via 223, as illustrated in Figure 9) toward a closed position (closed position, Paragraph 0091);
a fusible link (157) to laterally hold (as illustrated in Figure 9) the damper (50) against the bias (via 223, as illustrated in Figure 9) and in an open position (open position, Paragraph 0086) based on a temperature (as described in Paragraph 0092, when the temperature of the air inside 30 is high enough to melt 157, 50 is closed) within the interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3).
However, Carter lacks showing the fan is disposed in the outlet air convection port, the damper is horizontally-slidable, and a power outlet disposed inside the interior volume.
In the same field of endeavor of electrical enclosures, Bruski teaches (Figure 8):
It is known in the enclosure (10) art for a fan (70) to be disposed in (as illustrated in Figure 8, 70 is disposed in 30) in an outlet air convection port (30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the location of the fan shown by Carter to be disposed in the outlet air convection port, as taught by Bruski, so that the fan is disposed in a location that allows easier access for maintenance and repair to ensure proper operation of the cabinet.
In the same field of endeavor of electrical enclosures, Lattimore teaches (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
It is known in the electrical enclosure (chassis, title) art for a damper (10) to be horizontally slidable (“slidable movement”, Abstract; as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3) to be disposed (as illustrated in Figure 1) over a port (the port at the top of 50, as illustrated in Figure 1), wherein the damper (10) is biased toward (via 35, as described in Col. 3, lines 30-65) a closed position (closed position, Col., 3, line 33), wherein when a fusible link (40) exceeds a temperature (as described in Col, 3, lines 30-65), the damper (10) is closed (as described in Col. 3, lines 30-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the damper disposed adjacent the port taught Lattimore for the damper shown by Carter because it does no more yield predictable results of preventing the spread of fire from inside the enclosure to outside the enclosure, since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Placing the damper at the port prevents the fire from spreading outside of the enclosure by containing it within the enclosure, instead of within Carter’s conduits attached to the port.
In the same field of endeavor of cabinets, Cotton teaches (Figure 11):
It is known in the cabinet (cabinet, title) art for a power outlet (AC power strip, Figure 11) to be disposed inside (as illustrated in Figure 11, the AC power strip is disposed inside the cabinet between the hinges) the interior volume (the interior volume of the cabinet, in which the AC power strip is disposed, as illustrated in Figure 11).
Further, “the AC power strip may be used to power additional equipment in or around the cabinet, such as an on-board battery monitoring system”, Paragraph 0029.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the interior volume of the cabinet shown by Carter to include a power outlet, as taught by Cotton, to provide the benefit of powering additional equipment in or around the cabinet, such as a monitoring system.
Regarding Claim 17, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
Each door (38 and 40) of the pair of doors (38, 40) is double-walled (as illustrated in Figure 2, 38 and 40 have an inner wall and an outer wall).
Regarding Claim 18, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
Each door (38 and 40) of the pair of doors (38, 40) comprises a flange (82 and 83, respectively).
Regarding Claim 19, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
A shelf (top shelf, as illustrated in Figure 3) dividing (as illustrated in Figure 3) the interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3) into at least a first portion (the portion above the top shelf, as illustrated in Figure 3) and a second portion (the portion below the top shelf, as illustrated in Figure 3), wherein cross-ventilation occurs (because 62 and 64 are disposed on opposite sides and at different heights, during operation, cross-ventilation occurs between the top portion above the top shelf and the bottom portion below the top shelf) during operation of the pair of air convection ports (62, 64).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 20 are objected to as being dependent on 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.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Carter, Lattimore, Cotton and Kingston teaches the claimed invention except the screen defines a slotted portion, and the damper comprises a bracket extending through the slotted portion to engage the fusible link.
Modifying the combination accordingly requires impermissible hindsight.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Carter, Bruski, Lattimore, and Cotton teaches the claimed invention except an inner door vent and an outer door vent, a first flame arrestor positioned adjacent to the inner door vent and a second flame arrestor positioned adjacent to the outer door vent, and mineral wool positioned between the first flame arrestor and the second flame arrestor.
Modifying the combination accordingly requires impermissible hindsight.
Claim 21 is allowed.
Regarding Claim 21, Carter shows (Figures 1 – 10):
A battery cabinet (30), comprising:
an outer cabinet wall (34);
an inner cabinet wall (36) spaced apart from (as illustrated in Figure 2) the outer cabinet wall (32) to form an insulating air gap (gap illustrated between 34 and 36 in Figure 2) between the inner cabinet wall (36) and the outer cabinet wall (34);
a pair of doors (38, 40), each door (38 and 40) of the pair of doors (38, 40) comprising a sealing gasket (as described in Paragraph 0061, sealing flanges 82 and 83 are disposed around 38 and 40), wherein
the inner cabinet wall (36) and the pair of doors (38, 40) enclose an interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3) within the battery cabinet (30); and wherein
at least one door (40) of the pair of doors (38, 40) comprises a 3-point latch (“the latch system 46 can be a three-point latch having various configurations”, Paragraph 0064).
a shelf (top shelf, as illustrated in Figure 3) dividing (as illustrated in Figure 3) the interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3) into at least a first portion (the portion above the top shelf, as illustrated in Figure 3) and a second portion (the portion below the top shelf, as illustrated in Figure 3), wherein cross-ventilation occurs (because 62 and 64 are disposed on opposite sides and at different heights, during operation, cross-ventilation occurs between the top portion above the top shelf and the bottom portion below the top shelf) during operation of the pair of air convection ports (62, 64).
a pair of air convection ports (62, 64) disposed through (as illustrated in Figure 1) the outer cabinet wall (34) and the inner cabinet wall (36) at opposing cabinet ends (as illustrated in Figure 1, 64 is on the right end of 30 and 62 is on the left end of 30) and at different heights (as illustrated in Figure 1, 64 is located near the top of 30 and 62 is located near the bottom of 30) within the interior volume (volume of 59, as illustrated in Figure 3);
a fan (149) associated with (as illustrated in Figure 1) at least one of air convection port (62) of the pair of air convection ports (62, 64).
However, Carter lacks showing each door of the pair of doors comprising a filtered vent configured to filter hazardous fumes, the three-point latch includes a first latch on a first door side, a second latch on a second door side, and a third latch on a third door side, the shelf comprises at least one aperture to accommodate airflow between the upper portion and the lower portion, the fan is disposed in the outlet air convection port, and a power outlet disposed inside the interior volume.
Although the prior art discussed in the rejections above cures some of these deficiencies, the limitations “each door of the pair of doors comprising a filtered vent configured to filter hazardous fumes”, “the three-point latch includes a first latch on a first door side, a second latch on a second door side, and a third latch on a third door side”, and “the shelf comprises at least one aperture to accommodate airflow between the upper portion and the lower portion” are not taught by the previously recited combinations.
It would require impermissible hindsight to modify Carter to include each and every feature recited in the limitations of Claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related battery charging enclosures:
Carberry et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0144738): see Figures 1A – 1C
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA K TIGHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9476. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, Helena Kosanovic, can be reached on 571-272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA K TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights