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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regard to claim 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The line 60 of Kramis in not a singular continuous component and is clearly divided into separate components (i.e. a safety line and a complementary safety line) by the bimetallic module 4.
The previous rejection of claim 21 remains.
The previous objections have been withdrawn due to the amendments made.
The previous rejection has been modified to address the amendments made.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jefferies et al (2016/0137079).
In re Claim 13, Jefferies teaches a plug-in connection element for a plug-in connection, the plug-in connection element as seen in Figure 1A comprising: an electrically conductive first contact part (L1 of charging handle 150, paragraph 20) which is configured to form an electrically conductive connection with a complementary first contact part of a complementary plug-in connection element of the plug-in connection (L1 of power inlet of EV 200, paragraph 20); a further electrically conductive part (GROUND of charging handle 150); and a protective element (120) which is configured to reduce an electrical resistance between the first contact part and the further part as a temperature increases (paragraphs 22-23).
In re Claim 14, Jefferies teaches the further electrically conductive part comprises a reference part that is connected to a reference potential (the GROUND part in 150 is connected to ground (paragraph 22).
In re Claim 17, Jefferies teaches the further electrically conductive part comprises an electrically conductive second contact part that is configured to form an electrically conductive connection with a complementary second contact part (GROUND of power inlet of 200).
In re Claim 18, Jefferies teaches the protective element is configured to abruptly reduce the electrical resistance between the first contact part and the further part as soon as the temperature reaches or exceeds a predefined temperature threshold value (paragraphs 22-23).
Claim(s) 21, 22, and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kramis et al (EP3330118 A1).
In re Claim 21, Kramis teaches a plug-in connection element for a plug-in connection, the plug-in connection element as seen in Figure 4 comprising: an electrically conductive first contact part (contact part of 71 in connector 2, paragraphs 46-47) which is configured to form an electrically conductive connection with a complementary first contact part (contact part of vehicle that connects with 71) of a complementary plug-in connection element (socket of vehicle) of the plug-in connection; a safety line (portion of line 60 running from 3 to 4 which is configured to form an electrically conductive connection with a complementary safety line (portion of line 60 from 4 to the vehicle) of the complementary plug-in connection element of the plug-in connection when the first contact part is electrically conductively connected to the complementary first contact part; and a protective element (4) which is configured to increase an electrical resistance between the safety line and the complementary safety line as a temperature increases (paragraphs 46-52).
In re Claim 22, Kramis teaches the protective element is configured to abruptly increase the electrical resistance between the safety line and the complementary safety line as soon as the temperature reaches or exceeds a predefined temperature threshold (paragraph 52).
In re Claim 24, Kramis teaches the protective element comprises a bimetal arranged between the safety line and the complementary safety line (paragraphs 49-50); and the bimetal of the protective element is configured to interrupt the electrically conductive connection between the safety line and the complementary safety line as soon as the temperature reaches or exceeds a predefined temperature threshold value (paragraph 52).
In re Claim 25, Kramis teaches the plug in connection element is configured for voltage higher than 300V and more than 1A (paragraph 12).
In re Claims 26 and 27, Kramis teaches that plug-in connection element is connected to charge the battery as electric store of the electric vehicle (paragraph 41), wherein as similarly taught by paragraphs 51-52 of the instant specification it is determined that the connection between the safety lines is broken (i.e., resistance becomes greater than a threshold) and the connection element is decoupled from the energy store as a result (paragraphs 52-53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
Claims 23 is 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.
In re Claim 20, Jefferies teaches a thermistor R1 which is not a bimetal.
In re Claim 23, Kramis teaches the protective element is a bimetallic and is considered to bend not melt as a result of the temperature being exceeded.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER JAY CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights