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 .
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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
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 3, 4, 6-9, 14-16, 18, 19, 23, 24 and 26-31 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The above identified claims will be examined as best understood.
Re claim 5 the phrase "RAMP-LIKE" is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what is the "RAMP-LIKE" recited in the claim refers to.
Reference of prior art
Pletz. (DE 202018102453, Cable bridge).
VAN DER MAST HENDRICUS LEONARD et al. (WO 0076044, STATION FOR MOBILE TELEPHONY AND WALKWAY FOR USE THEREWITH ). Hereinafter Van.
Manabe et al. (US 20230216287, TRUCTURE FOR ATTACHING GRATING LID ONTO RESIN TROUGH BODY; TROUGH TRACK; TROUGH TRACK FORMING METHOD; AND GRATING LID).
Gordon et al. (US 20170279255, Improvements In And Relating To A Cable Guard Cable Ramp Or Cable Protector).
Lubanski. (US 20100018742, SUBSTANTIALLY TRANSPARENT CABLE PROTECTOR AND CABLE PROTECTION SYSTEM).
Lubanski. (US 20090194328, TAPERED TRANSITION RAMP FOR CABLE PROTECTOR WITH OFFSET CENTER SECTIONS). Hereinafter Lubanski-1.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletz in view of Van and further in view of Manabe.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Pletz discloses:
A module (1) for an above-ground electrical cable installation for an electric vehicle charging station infrastructure, characterized in that [[it]] the module is formed by a longitudinally profiled rectangular block with a trapezoidal cross-section (figs. 1 and 11, items 1, 1c) comprising:
(a}[[-]] a slab (item 2) forming the bottom of a longitudinal cable channel and bordered by:_(il [[*]]
a reinforced front edge (12) forming a wheel stop (item 5),
(ii) [[*]] a back (13) forming a wall with at least one cut-out (131) (items 6, 17),
However Pletz fails to teach as disclosed by Van: (iii) [[*]]] a bottom with transverse channels (111) forming water passages opening out at the front (AV) and rear (AR) of the module (1) (item 28),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Van teachings of a bottom with transverse channels (111) forming water passages opening out at the front (AV) and rear (AR) of the module (1)into the Pletz, as modified above, to drain excess water.
On the other hand Pletz, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Manabe: b})[[-]] a rebate (123, 133) formed by the top of the front edge (12) and the back (13) (unnumbered items where item 31 rests), and {c}[[-]] a grating (item 5) accommodated by the rebate (123, 133) at the top (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Manabe teachings of a a rebate (123, 133) formed by the top of the front edge (12) and the back (13and {c}[[-]] a grating accommodated by the rebate (123, 133) at the top into the Pletz, as modified above, to include a cover.
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Pletz, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the module is made from rubber, specifically recycled tire. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the module is made from rubber, specifically recycled tire to reduce cost by using recycled tire, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletz in view of Van and further in view of Manabe and further in view of Gordon.
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Pletz, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Manabe: The module (1) according to claim 1 The module (1) according to characterized in that the slab (1) comprises a discontinuous longitudinal partition (14) delimiting two cavities (C1, C2), the top (143) of which forms a support at the level of the rabbets (123, 133) for the grating (2) (fig. 8, l 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Gordon teachings of a a rebate (123, 133) formed by the top of the front edge (12) and the back (13and {c}[[-]] a grating accommodated by the rebate (123, 133) at the top into the Pletz, as modified above, to reduce weight.
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Pletz, as modified above, discloses: The module (1) according to claim 3 The module Module (1) according to characterized in that the cut-outs (131) in the back (13) and the discontinuities in the form of cut- outs (141) in the partition (14) are offset longitudinally (XX direction) so that they do not face each other transversely (Gordon fig. 8, l 1-7).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletz in view of Van and further in view of Manabe and further in view of Lubanski.
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Pletz, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Lubanski: The module (1) according to claim 1 The module (1) according to characterized in that the reinforced front edge (12) has a trapezoidal cross-section with a ramp-like front face fitted with signaling devices (122) (¶ 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Lubanski teachings of the reinforced front edge (12) has a trapezoidal cross-section with a ramp-like front face fitted with signaling devices into the Pletz, as modified above, to use high quality material for better performance.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletz in view of Van and further in view of Manabe and further in view of Lubanski-1.
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Pletz, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Lubanski-1: The module (1) according to claim 1 The module characterized in that [[it]] the module comprises assembly holes (113) in the transverse faces and the back (13), in the thickness of the slab (1) receiving assembly pins (3) for joining adjacent modules, longitudinally and/or back to back (fig. 9, ¶ 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Lubanski-1 teachings of comprises assembly holes (113) in the transverse faces and the back (13), in the thickness of the slab (1) receiving assembly pins (3) for joining adjacent modules, longitudinally and/or back to back into the Pletz, as modified above, to form an assembly comprises multiple modules as needed.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletz in view of Van and further in view of Manabe and further in view of Lubanski-1.
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Pletz, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Lubanski-1:The module (1) according to The module (1) according to claim 2 characterized in that the module comprises assembly holes (113) in the transverse faces and the back (13), in the thickness of the slab (1) receiving assembly pins (3) for joining adjacent modules, longitudinally and/or back to back (Lubanski-1 fig. 9, ¶ 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Lubanski-1 teachings of The module (1) according to claim 2 characterized in that the module comprises assembly holes (113) in the transverse faces and the back (13), in the thickness of the slab (1) receiving assembly pins (3) for joining adjacent modules, longitudinally and/or back to back into the Pletz, as modified above, to form an assembly comprises multiple modules as needed.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletz in view of Van and further in view of Manabe and further in view of Lubanski-1.
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Pletz, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Lubanski-1:The module (1) according to The module (1) according to claim 3 characterized in that the module comprises assembly holes (113) in the transverse faces and the back (13), in the thickness of the slab (1) receiving assembly pins (3) for joining adjacent modules, longitudinally and/or back to back (Lubanski-1 fig. 9, ¶ 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Lubanski-1 teachings of The module (1) according to claim 3 characterized in that the module comprises assembly holes (113) in the transverse faces and the back (13), in the thickness of the slab (1) receiving assembly pins (3) for joining adjacent modules, longitudinally and/or back to back into the Pletz, as modified above, to form an assembly comprises multiple modules as needed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 571-272-1467. 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.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights