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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL office action is a response to the amendments and remarks received on 10/1/2025. Applicant’s remarks and amendments have been fully considered but are not allowable for the reasons below. Claims 1-13 are pending, of which independent claims 1, 10, 13 are currently amended.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,984,706 Kakuta et al. (“Kakuta”).
As to independent claim 1 and similarly recited independent claims 10 and 13, an electric Vehicle (EV) charging connector (1:7-10: field of invention directed to charging connector for EV.), comprising: a charging cable (2:46: cable C) that includes charging lines (Fig. 5, 2:46-48: cable C includes electrical wires (41, 42) for power), which are configured to carry charging current (BRI: A “which” clause that is separated by commas, as is the case here, is a non-restrictive clause that is not given patentable weight. Applicant may amend the non-restrictive clause by replacing “which” with “that” and removing the first comma. In any event, cable C’s conductors transfer power and thus are configured to carry charring current.), and at least one air tube (Fig. 5, 2:46-48: air tubes (43) run with conductors in the same cable.); a contact element connected to the charging cable (3:15-19: power terminals 10), the contact element being a galvanic contact interface to a car inlet (Abstract, 3:15-19: Terminals 10 are for galvanic (i.e., physical electrical) connection to the power receiving connector (i.e., vehicle inlet).); wherein the contact element is a part of a hot portion of the EV charging connector (BRI of “hot portion”: any physical portion of the charging connector that heats up during operation. 5:49-54: Power terminals 10 are the critical interface between the connector and the car inlet and they are the site of current transfer. Carrying current inherently subjects the terminal area to resistive heating, making it part of the “hot portion” under BRI. Moreover, Kakuta identifies the thermal effects of current flow are exacerbated by dust or moisture buildup, which can lead to contact degradation such as poor contact or short-circuiting. While not explicitly labeled as “hot potion”, it heats during charging and is treated in the design as heat-sensitive and thermally active. Therefore, the terminal area of Kakuta meets the limitation of a “hot portion” under the BRI.); wherein the least one air tube is configured to lead an air stream directly to the hot portion of the EV charging connector for cooling the hot portion such that air of the air stream flows at least partially around the hot portion (5:40-51: Air tube 43 delivers compressed air to the front hood 8 that encloses terminal 10- direct delivery. “[F]or cooling the hot portion” is mere intended use that does not change the physical structure of the air tube or air stream. MPEP § 2114: Apparatus claims are not limited by the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used. In Kakuta, the air stream flows around the hot port (the terminals). While Kakuta describes the purpose as purging moisture/dust, a PHOSITA would recognize the structure is inherently capable of cooling, so the functional phrase “for cooling the hot portion” does not distinguish over the prior art.).
For claim 10’s “air stream generator” see Kakuta’s compressor 46 + control valves 49.
As to claim 6, the EV charging connector according to claim 1, wherein the EV charging connector further comprises an air guiding structure, and wherein the air guiding structure is configured to guide the air flow of the air stream from the air tube into a free space of the EV charging connector (5:40-48: combination of tubes, vents, and jet opening function to guide the air flow from the tube into an internal cavity of the connector (“air guiding structure”).).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuta in view of EP 4134266 A1 to Kaufmann (“Kaufmann”).
As to claim 12, Kakuta teaches all the limitation of claim 10 from which claim 12 depends. Kakuta, however, does not explicitly disclose a cooling device configured to cool at least a portion of the air stream.
Kaufmann teaches a vehicle charging station comprising a thermal management unit that includes a cooling system (i.e., a vapor-compression refrigeration system, or VCRS) for cooling a fluid medium (e.g., coolant or refrigerant) which is delivered to the charging connector.
Although Kaufmann discusses refrigerant or liquid coolant, it teaches the general principle of cooling a fluid medium prior to its delivery to a heat-sensitive region (e.g., electrical contacts in the connector). A PHOSITA would recognize that this concept could also apply to air in an air-based purging system such as Kakuta’s (see Kaufmann: ¶ 0022-0030).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the application to modify Kakuta’s charging station to include a cooling device configured to the compressed air prior to its entry into the air tube, as taught by Kaufmann, in order to reduce thermal stress on the already hot terminals, or improve safety and reliability of the connection.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuta in view of US Pub. No. 202100250127 to Lee et al. (“Lee”).
Katuta teaches all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 10, and similarly recited in claim 13, as disclosed above. Further, Katuta discloses a method for leading an air stream to a hot portion of an EV charging connector and cable to purge moisture/dust. Katuta, however, does not explicitly disclose the air stream is provided during charging or that the air stream is used for cooling the hot portion.
Lee discloses a vehicle charging system comprising a charging cable and a connector in which cooling fluid is delivered to the cable and connector during charging process to cool the conductor lines and contact portions, which are subject to heat buildup due to current transfer (¶ 0021-0025). Although Lee uses liquid coolant rather than air, it teaches the method of applying a cooling medium to the hot portion of the EV connector during charging in order to manage temperature and ensure safety.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify Kakuta’s method to provide the air stream during the charging process, and to use the air stream not only for purging dust but also for cooling the hot portion, as taught by Lee. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying a cooling medium (whether air or liquid) to a heat-generating portion of the connector during charging would improve connector reliability, reduce thermal degradation, and prevent overheating of the power terminals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-9, and 11 remain 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.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, and 11 would be allowable if amended in manner above because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a connector or EV charging station having all the combinations of elements required by and recited in claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11. (Claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 2.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant states in page 6, ¶ 2:
Kakuta does not teach or suggest each element of amended claims 1, 10, and 13. Specifically, Kakuta does not teach or suggest that "the least one air tube is configured to lead an air stream directly to the hot portion of the EV charging connector for cooling the hot portion such that air of the air stream flows at least partially around the hot portion." In contrast, Kakuta recites an "air purging means" to remove foreign substances like dust and moisture from the connector interface by blowing them off using the air transported by the air tube (43), which the Office alleges is analogous with the at least one air tube of the present disclosure. However, Kakuta neither teaches nor suggests that the air stream from the air tube is directed to the hot portion of the EV charging connector so as to cool the hot portion.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10, Examiner disagrees.
“[F]or cooling the hot portion” is mere intended use that does not change the physical structure of the air tube or air stream. MPEP § 2114: Apparatus claims are not limited by the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used. In Kakuta, the air stream flows around the hot port (the terminals). While Kakuta describes the purpose as purging moisture/dust, a PHOSITA would recognize the structure is inherently capable of cooling, so the functional phrase “for cooling the hot portion” does not distinguish over the prior art.
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner SURESH MEMULA whose telephone number is (571)272-8046, and any inquiry for a formal Applicant initiated interview must be requested via a PTOL-413A form and faxed to the Examiner's personal fax phone number: (571) 273-8046. Furthermore, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner via email (suresh.memula@uspto.gov) on the condition the communication is pursuant to and in accordance with MPEP §502.03 and §713.01. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9am-6pm. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned (i.e., central fax phone number) 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).
/SURESH MEMULA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851