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 Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 05/11/2026 in which claim 11 was amended and claim 19 canceled. No other claims were added, therefore claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending for examination below.
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) 11-13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai [US 2010/0315040] in view of Gibbons et al. [US 2016/0223171].
With respect to claim 11, Sakurai discloses a charging device for DC charging of electric vehicles [Fig. 1A], the charging device comprising: a housing [51]; power electronics disposed in said housing [see fig. 2, i.e. at least converter 54]; a charging cable connected to said power electronics and leading out of said housing [52], said charging cable having a charging plug at a distal end, said charging plug having a grip portion and a contact portion [par. 0059]; and a charging plug holder disposed on said housing and is configured to hold said charging plug [see fig. 3], said charging plug holder having a first depression formed therein and sized and shaped to receive said contact portion of said charging plug in an insertion direction and to hold said charging plug in a standby state of the charging device [par. 0060], however Sakurai fails to explicitly disclose said charge plug holder having a drainage channel.
Gibbons relates to a mounting device holder for batteries and teaches the plug holder having a drainage channel formed therein and leading from a lowest point of a depression into a surrounding environment of the device, said drainage channel being formed as a slot [890].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Sakurai to include the drainage slot at a lowest point as taught by Gibbons for the benefit of draining water thereby prevent water from penetrating areas with circuitry that could cause short circuiting as suggested by Gibbons [par. 0054].
With respect to claim 12, Sakurai further discloses wherein said grip portion of said charging plug is disposed outside of said first depression in the standby state [fig. 4A].
With respect to claim 13, Sakurai further discloses wherein said contact portion of said charging plug is held in a frictionally engaged manner by said first depression in the standby state [fig. 4B].
With respect to claim 15, Sakurai further discloses wherein said first depression extends around a center axis running in the insertion direction and is defined by a bottom surface, through which the center axis passes, and a lateral surface facing the center axis [75].
With respect to claim 16, Sakurai further discloses wherein the center axis forms an acute angle to a horizontal line and the center axis rises in a direction opposite to the insertion direction [as illustrated in figs 4a-4b].
With respect to claim 17, Sakurai further discloses wherein said first depression has an inner shape that corresponds at least approximately to an envelope body of said contact portion of said charging plug [as illustrated in figs 4a-4b].
With respect to claim 18, Sakurai further discloses wherein said charging plug holder has a second depression formed therein and surrounds an opening of said first depression, such that at least a portion of said grip portion of said charging plug in the standby state is disposed in said second depression and spaced from a wall of said charging plug holder defining said second depression [74].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai [US 2010/0315040] and Gibbons et al. [US 2016/0223171] as applied above, and further in view of Effenberger et al. [US 2019/0047426].
With respect to claim 14, Sakurai fails to explicitly disclose wherein said first depression tapers along the insertion direction. However, Effenberger relates to an electric vehicle charging plug connection and teaches incorporating a tapering element along an insertion direction [par. 0055]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify Sakurai to incorporate a tapering surface as taught by Effenberger for the benefit of guiding the connection into a secure fit as stated by Effenberger.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai [US 2010/0315040] and Gibbons et al. [US 2016/0223171] as applied above, and further in view of Herold et al. [US 2020/0298717].
With respect to claims 20-21, Sakurai fails to disclose wherein said charging plug holder is at least partially made of a partially transparent plastic. However, such a concept is well-known in the art. For example, Herold relates to a charging socket recess and teaches being at least partially made of transparent plastic in order to illuminate the socket to facilitate connection [abstract, par. 0049-0061]. While Herold does not explicitly recite “opalescent” he does disclose the plastic is translucent. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to select the type of translucent plastic as being opalescent since there are only a finite number of translucent plastics to choose from and doing so would not invoke undue experimentation or present any unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify Sakurai to utilize a translucent plastic (specifically an opalescent plastic) for the benefit of guiding the user to the connection port by allowing the light to illuminate through the connection structure via the translucent plastic as stated by Herold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection has been applied above in view of Gibbons and applicant has not yet had a chance to respond to the newly applied 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL R PELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights