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 Objections
Claim 1, 3 – 5, 7, 9, 11 – 12 and 14 – 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “adapted to” does not further limit the structure of the invention. Examiner suggest removing this language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by King, JR. (US 20220057090 A1, “King”).
Regarding claim 1, King discloses (Fig. 1, 12-21) an electrical pedestal (10 or 100) comprising a sleeve (D) adapted to carry electrical wires to a flat roof (R) (para [0086], [0088]), a pedestal adapted (12) to be connected to the sleeve and mounted on the flat roof, a cover (14) adapted to be attached to the top of the pedestal (see fig 1), and optionally a strain relief adapted to be attached to the inside of the pedestal(since this limitation is optional it was not addressed).
Regarding claim 2, King discloses the electrical pedestal according to claim 1 wherein the sleeve, the pedestal and the cover are made of plastic (See abstract and para [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, King discloses the electrical pedestal according to claim 1 wherein the pedestal is adapted to receive a one-piece tubular flashing (See para [0088]).
Regarding claim 4, King discloses the electrical pedestal according to claim 2 wherein the pedestal is adapted to receive a one-piece tubular flashing (See para [0088]).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King, JR. (US 20220057090 A1, “King”)
Regarding claim 5, King discloses the electrical pedestal according to claim 1 wherein the electrical pedestal is adapted to receive the electrical wires to wire at least two devices selected from the group consisting of an electrical disconnect, a convenience outlet, a light or a combination thereof.
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
Regarding claim 11, King discloses the electrical pedestal according to claim 1 adapted to be installed by an electrician and left for later installation of a one-piece tubular flashing by a roofer.
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King, JR. (US 20220057090 A1, “King”) in view of Carr (US 5638758 A “Carr”).
Regarding claim 6, King discloses the electrical pedestal according to claim 1 wherein the sleeve is plastic (see the abstract) and comprises a tubular portion (para [0072]) and a funnel shaped end.
King is silent the sleeve having a funnel shaped end
However, Carr discloses (Fig. 1, 2) the sleeve (6) having a funnel shaped end {(5), (see fig. 2)}
King and Carr are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pedestal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified King to incorporate the teachings of Carr and provide the sleeve (6) having a funnel shaped end {(5), (see fig. 2)}. Doing so would provide cable routing and 360o access gap (Col. 1, lines: 61 - 67).
Claim(s) Claim(s) 7 – 9, 12 and 14 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King, JR. (US 20220057090 A1, “King”) in view of Carr (US 5638758 A “Carr”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bedegrew et al (US 5750915 A, “Bedegrew”) and Carr (US 5638758 A “Carr”).
Regarding claim 7, King in view of Carr discloses the electrical pedestal according to claim 6 wherein King further discloses the pedestal (12) is plastic (see the abstract) and comprises at least two parts consisting of a tubular base (122) having a flashing (120) at one end thereof adapted to overlie and be connected to the sleeve and an upper end having a square or rectangular portion adapted to receive at least two devices selected from the group consisting of an electrical disconnect, a convenience outlet, a light or a combination thereof.
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
King in view of Carr is silent on an upper end of the pedestal having a square or rectangular portion
However, Bedegrew discloses (Fig. 2, 7) an upper end of the pedestal having a square or rectangular portion (See Claim 5)
King in view of Carr and Bedegrew are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pedestal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified King in view of Carr to incorporate the teachings of Bedegrew and provide an upper end of the pedestal having a square or rectangular portion (See Claim 5). Doing so would make it much easier to weld and bolt to other flat components and also provide high strength and rigidity (Col. 5, lines: 1 – 17).
Regarding claim 8, King in view of Carr and Bedegrew discloses the electrical pedestal according to claim 7 wherein Carr further discloses the cover (10) includes an opening for attaching a light.
Regarding claim 9, King in view of Carr and Bedegrew discloses the electrical pedestal according to claim 8 wherein the electrical pedestal is adapted to receive two electrical disconnects, one convenience outlet and a light.
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
Regarding claim 12, King discloses (Fig. 1, 12-21) an electrical pedestal (10 or 100) comprising a plastic sleeve (D) adapted to carry electrical wires to a flat roof (R) (para [0086], [0088]) comprising a tubular portion and a funnel shaped end; a plastic pedestal (12) adapted to be connected to the sleeve (D) and mounted on the flat roof (R) comprising a tubular (122) end having a flashing (120) and the tubular end transitioning to a square or rectangular end adapted to receive the electrical wires and adapted to wire at least two devices selected from the group consisting of an electrical disconnect, a convenience outlet, a light or a combination thereof; a plastic cover (112) adapted to be attached to the top of the pedestal; and optionally a strain relief adapted to be attached to the inside of the pedestal, wherein the electrical pedestal is adapted to receive a one-piece tubular flashing overlying the flashing of the pedestal.
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
King is silent on the tubular end of the pedestal transitioning to a square or rectangular end and the sleeve having a funnel shaped end
However, Bedegrew discloses (Fig. 2, 7) the tubular end of the pedestal transitioning to a square or rectangular end (See Claim 5)
King and Bedegrew are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pedestal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified King to incorporate the teachings of Bedegrew and provide the tubular end of the pedestal transitioning to a square or rectangular end (See Claim 5). Doing so would make it much easier to weld and bolt to other flat components and also provide high strength and rigidity (Col. 5, lines: 1 – 17).
King in view of Bedegrew is silent the sleeve having a funnel shaped end
However, Carr discloses (Fig. 1, 2) the sleeve (6) having a funnel shaped end {(5), (see fig. 2)}
King in view of Bedegrew and Carr are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pedestal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified King in view of Bedegrew to incorporate the teachings of Carr and provide the sleeve (6) having a funnel shaped end {(5), (see fig. 2)}. Doing so would provide cable routing and 360o access gap (Col. 1, lines: 61 - 67).
Regarding claim 14, King in view of Carr and Bedegrew discloses the electrical pedestal according to claim 13 adapted to be installed by an electrician and left for later installation of the one-piece tubular flashing by a roofer.
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
Regarding claim 15, King in view of Carr and Bedegrew discloses the electrical pedestal according to claim 14 wherein the electrical pedestal is adapted to receive two electrical disconnects, one convenience outlet and a light.
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDI MOHAMED MAIGA whose telephone number is (703)756-1870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am 5 pm.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on 571-272-2342. 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.
/SIDI M MAIGA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights