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 . As per the remarks of 07/28/2026 claims 1, 4, 6 and 8-9 are mended, and claims 3 and 10 have been canceled.
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 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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US 5, 545,046) (Hereinafter, Masuda) in view of Wang et al. (CN 207368343) further in view of Meier (US 20130335021).
With respect to claim 1, Masuda discloses a charging socket (Fig. 1, 1; col. 3, lines 51-55) for mounting in a body of an at least partially electrically driven motor vehicle (Fig. 7, vehicle 104: Col. 3, lines 50-53) comprising a housing (Fig. 1, 11 or fig. 4, 14); at least one contact element (Fig. 4, contact element 21 and 19) accommodated in the housing (Fig. 4, housing 14), and at least one fastening region (Fig. 4, fastening or multiple bolts 15) formed on the housing (Fig. 4, 14) configured to fasten the charging socket (Fig. 4, 16) to the body of the motor vehicle (col. 3, lines 62-64) wherein the housing (Fig. 4, 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Masuda further discloses wherein the housing (Fig. 4, 14) has at least one insert (Fig. 4, 19/21) in the housing part (Fig. 4, 14); and further Wang discloses comprising the metal material is connected to the at least one insert (Para. # 0042).
Masuda, does not, however, expressly disclose wherein the housing comprises the metal material at least in a region of the at least one fastening region.
Wang, on the other hand, discloses the housing comprises the metal material at least in a region of the at least one fastening region (Para. # 0042: Please refer to Figures 3 to 5 and Figure 7. The first metal housing 13 is also symmetrically arranged; Fig. 3-5 and 7).
Masuda, Wang and Meier are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely charging connector for electric vehicle.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the housing comprising metal material or made with metals to the charging connector of Masuda in view of Wang for the benefit of having a good shielding effect (see Abstract), good durability and strong metal enclosure often offers a high level of security.
But, both references, Masuda, Wang and Meier do not expressly disclose the housing has at least one insert comprising the metal material and a plastic material.
Meier, on the other hand, discloses housing also made of different materials such as flexible plastic and one insert made of metal (from a sheet of metal) (Para. # 0009-0011: the insert can be a connector /adaptor advantageously produced from sheet of metal, but the housing can be made from different material).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the housing comprising metal material connected to housing comprising plastic material to the charging connector of Masuda in view of Wang for the benefit of avoiding an arrangement that is excessively rigid, and therefore a risk of fracture, (Para. # 0011).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a know material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a mattery of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 2, the combined references of Masuda, Wang and Meier disclose the charging system as described above, Masuda further discloses wherein the at least one fastening region (Fig. 4, fastening or multiple bolts 15) has at least one receiving opening (Fig. 4, 19-fitting recess or receiving part).
With respect to claim 4, the combined references of Masuda, Wang and Meier disclose the charging system as described above, further Meier discloses the at least one housing part in a force-fitting and/or form-fitting and/or bonded manner (Para. # 0008, 0009: the housing is to be fit to the adapter and a plug is fit to the housing).
PNG
media_image2.png
554
593
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5, the combined references of Masuda, Wang and Meier disclose the charging system as described above, further Masuda discloses housing part is injection-molded onto the at least one insert (Col. 3, lines 65-67: housing portion can be provided as an integral molded structure).
With respect to claim 6, the combined references of Masuda, Wang and Meier disclose the charging system as described above, further Masuda discloses the part (insert) is arranged between a first housing part (Fig. 4, 14), and a second housing part (Fig. 4, 18:outer wall).
With respect to claim 7, the combined references of Masuda, Wang and Meier disclose the charging system as described above, further Masuda discloses one insert (Fig. 4, 18) has a larger outer circumferential surface than an outer circumferential surface of the at least one housing part (Fig. 4, 14).
With respect to claim 8, the combined references of Masuda, Wang and Meier disclose the charging system as described above, further Wang discloses wherein the at least one insert is-comprises a punched and bent part (Para. # 0049 and 0051: conductive terminal 12 and a pair of bent portions 173).
With respect to claim 9, the combined references of Masuda, Wang and Meier disclose the charging system as described above, further Wang discloses wherein the at least one insert (115) has a frame shape (Para. # 0011: first metal shell... wrapped around the first insulating body, a mounting frame protruding outward).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the remarks of 07/28/2026 have been considered, but with all due respect, they are not persuasive to overcome the rejections based on the references described (see the above office action).
Applicant argued that “… Masuda, Wang and Meier references, whether alone or in combination could not render obvious…
Examiner explained in the above descriptions, in addition to Wang and Masuda addressing all claim limitations indicated, Meier discloses the housing can also be made of different materials such as flexible plastic and one insert made of metal (from a sheet of metal as indicated in paragraph 0009-0011: the insert can be a connector /adaptor and as elaborated, advantageously produced from sheet of metal, but the housing can also be made from different material-such as plastic). In addition to that, as recited above, selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a mattery of obvious design choice.
Accordingly, since the applicant have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YALKEW FANTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/YALKEW FANTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
