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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09-19-2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-14 and 16-18 are 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.
Claim 1, line 18, “the individual components” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-14 and 16-18 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
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 1, 3, 5, 6, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig et al. (2023/0282392) in view of Hu et al. (CN 206864231).
Koenig et al. discloses a charging cable (100, Fig. 4) for charging an electric vehicle, wherein the charging cable comprises: a coolant supply tube (60) extending in a longitudinal direction and configured to transport a coolant through the charging cable; a protective conductor (40) extending in a longitudinal direction substantially parallel to the coolant supply tube; a plurality of power wires (10) extending in the longitudinal direction and configured to conduct positive and/or negative direct current; and an outer mantle (50) extending in the longitudinal direction and surrounding the coolant supply tube, the protective conductor and the plurality of power wires, wherein each of the plurality of power wires comprises a power conductor (16), a power wire insulation (18) surrounding the power conductor, and a coolant channel (12) is defined between the power conductor and the power wire insulation, wherein coolant flows through the coolant supply tube (60, return) toward a charging connector, and wherein the coolant flows through each coolant channel (14, feed) away from the charging connector ([0048]), wherein the coolant supply tube (60) is arranged outside each of the plurality of power wires.
Koenig et al. does not disclose the protective conductor (40) being an earth; and multiple spacers being provided between the power conductor and the power wire insulation such that a coolant channel is defined between the power conductor and the power wire insulation (re-claim 1).
Hu et al. discloses a charging cable for vehicle comprising an earth (3) which is configured to serve as ground. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the protective conductor (40) of Koenig et al. an earth to serve as ground as taught by Hu et al. to provide the cable with a grounding means.
Hu et al. discloses a power wire (1) comprising a power conductor (11) and a power wire insulation (13) surrounding the power conductor, wherein multiple spacers (14) are provided between the power conductor and the power wire insulation such that a coolant channel (15) is defined between the power conductor and the power wire insulation. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify each power wire (10, 20) of Koenig et al. by replacing the power wire insulation (18, 28) and the cooling hose (12, 22) with just the power wire insulation having multiple spacers therein as taught by Hu (Fig. 2), such modification would reduce material used (no cooling hose) and center the power conductor with respect to the power wire insulation.
It is noted that since the modified charging cable of Koenig et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, the individual components of the charging cable are enabled to deform and/or move with respect to each other (re-claim 1).
Re-claim 3, Koenig et al., as modified, discloses the power wire insulation having an inner surface, wherein the spacers comprise protrusions that are provided at the inner surface of the wire insulation.
Re-claim 5, Koenig et al. discloses the coolant being provided within the coolant channel and the coolant supply tube.
Re-claims 6 and 14, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use an ultrapure water/glycol mixture for the coolant in the modified cable of Koenig et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since such material is known in the art for being used as cooling material.
Re-claim 11, Koenig et al. discloses the power conductor of each power wire being manufactured from copper ([0061]).
Re-claims 12, 17, and 18, the modified charging cable of Koenig et al. is rated for 1000A, 2000A, or 3000A since it comprises structure and material as claimed.
Re-claim 13, Koenig et al. discloses an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) for charging an electric vehicle (not shown), comprising the charging cable according to claim 1, the charging connector (plug) configured to be connected to the electric vehicle, and a cooling unit, wherein the charging cable is provided between the cooling unit and the charging connector, the cooling unit is configured to transport the coolant towards the charging connector through the coolant supply tube, the coolant supply tube being configured to transport the coolant through the charge charging cable, and the charging connector is configured to return the coolant towards the cooling unit through the coolant channel of each power wire ([0048]).
Claim 15 is method counterpart of claim 1.
Re-claim 16, Koenig et al., as modified, discloses the wire insulation and the spacers being manufactured integrally (see Hu).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig et al. in view of Heyne et al. (DE 102019112843).
Koenig et al. discloses invention substantially as claimed in claim 1, see the rejection above.
Koenig et al. does not disclose the protective conductor (40) being an earth; and multiple spacers being provided between the power conductor and the power wire insulation such that a coolant channel is defined between the power conductor and the power wire insulation (re-claim 1).
Heyne et al. discloses a charging cable for an electric vehicle comprising an earth (15) configured to serve as ground. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the protective conductor (40) of Koenig et al. an earth to serve as ground as taught by Heyne et al. to provide the cable with a grounding means.
Heyne et al. discloses each power wire comprising multiple spacers comprised of beads (24) (re-claim 2) arranged between the power conductor (21) and wire insulation (19) such that a coolant channel is defined between the power conductor and the power wire insulation. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the cooling hose (12, 22) of Koenig et al. with multiple spacers (hoses 24) taught by Heyne et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since it has been held that making a former integral part (one big cooling hose) into various parts (smaller cooling hoses) would a matter of obvious choice. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
It is noted that since the modified charging cable of Koenig et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, the individual components of the charging cable are enabled to deform and/or move with respect to each other (re-claim 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig et al. in view of Hu et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ting et al. (2022/0238255).
Koenig et al. and Hu et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed including each protrusion having a base facing towards the inner surface of the wire insulation and a top facing towards the power conductor. Koenig and Hu do not disclose the protrusions being triangular protrusions, each having a base facing towards the inner surface of the wire insulation and an apex facing towards the power conductor. Ting et al. (Fig. 8) discloses a power wire comprising spacers (416) between a power conductor and a wire insulation, each spacer being a triangular protrusion and having a base facing towards the inner surface of the wire insulation and an apex facing towards the power conductor. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the protrusions (of Hu) in the modified cable of Koenig et al. to be triangular protrusions each having a base facing towards the inner surface of the wire insulation and an apex facing towards the power conductor, as taught by Ting et al., to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of choice. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig et al. in view of Hu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawaguchi et al. (JP 2012-221739).
Claim 7 additionally recites the conductor of each power wire being substantially wedge-shaped. Kawaguchi et al. discloses a conductor (Fig. 4) being substantially wedge-shaped. It would have been obvious that depending on the specific use of the resulting cable, one skilled in the art would modify the conductor in each power wire of Koenig et al. to be wedge-shaped since it is taught by Kawaguchi et al. that conductor can be formed in many shapes depending on its end use.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig et al. in view of Hu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zoon et al. (2021/0114475).
Zoon discloses a charging cable having a length of about 5.5 m ([0020], conductor having a length of 5 m). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the cable of Koenig et al. to have a length of about 5.5 m as taught by Zoon et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhrer (DE 102016118193) in view of Hu et al.
Fuhrer discloses a charging cable for an electric vehicle, comprising a coolant supply tube (23) extending in a longitudinal direction and configured to transport a coolant through the charging cable; an earth (21) extending in a longitudinal direction substantially parallel to the coolant supply tube and configured to serve as ground (page 6 of English machine translation); a plurality of power wires (22) extending in the longitudinal direction and configured to conduct positive and/or negative direct current; and an outer mantle (20) extending in the longitudinal direction and surrounding the coolant supply tube and the power wires, wherein each power wire comprises a power conductor (220) and a power wire insulation (221) surrounding the power conductor, and wherein the coolant supply tube is arranged outside each of the power wires (re-claim 1). Fuhrer also discloses the earth (21) being provided around the coolant supply tube (23) (re-claim 9); and the coolant supply tube being arranged in the middle of the charging cable (Figs 3-4) (re-claim 10).
Fuhrer does not disclose each power wire comprising multiple spacers provided between the power conductor and the wire insulation such that a coolant channel is defined between the power conductor and the wire insulation (re-claim 1).
Hu et al. discloses a charging cable for an electric vehicle, (Fig. 1) comprising a coolant tube (2) and power wires (1), each power wire comprising a power conductor (11) and a power wire insulation (13) surrounding the power conductor, wherein multiple spacers (14) are provided between the power conductor and the wire insulation such that a coolant channel (15) is defined between the power conductor and the wire insulation, wherein coolant flows through the coolant tube (2) toward a charging connector (page 4 of the English machine translation, conduit 2 a cooling medium outflow pipe), wherein the coolant flows through each coolant channel (15) away from the charging connector (page 4, cooling medium enters from the space 15) (re-claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to eliminate coolant lines (24) of Fuhrer and modify each power wire of Fuhrer such that the wire insulation (221) comprises multiple spacers, wherein coolant flows through the coolant tube (23) toward a charging connector, and wherein the coolant flows through each coolant channel (formed in each power wire) away from the charging connector, as taught by Hu et al. to reduce manufacturing cost, no additional cooling pipe needed, and reduce the cable weight (Hu, page 4).
It is noted that since the modified charging cable of Fuhrer comprises structure and material as claimed, the individual components of the charging cable are enabled to deform and/or move with respect to each other (re-claim 1).
Re-claim 13, Fuhrer and Hu et al. disclose an electric vehicle supply equipment for charging an electric vehicle comprising the charging cable according to claim 1. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured 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 Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Re-claim 14, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use an ultrapure water/glycol mixture for the coolant in the modified cable of Fuhrer to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since such material is known in the art for being used as cooling material.
Claim 15 is method counterpart of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841