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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the inner core frame connected with the device via a threaded coupling or a screw connection, as recited in claim 5, 16, and 20, must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. Furthermore, the electrical connection device connected with the inner core frame via a threaded coupling or a screw connection, as recited in claims 16, and 20, must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. Furthermore, the external thread outside the inner core frame and internal threaded provided in the device, as recited in claim 7, must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. Finally, the dust cover recited in claim 13 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following:
Claim 24 depends from cancelled claim 23. For purposes of examination it will be assumed claim 24 depends from claim 22.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 – 2, 4 – 7, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 212587749 U (“Ling”).
Regarding claim 1, Ling discloses an electric vehicle charging socket, wherein the charging socket comprises:
a device (30) fixed with a vehicle body (see [0034]);
at least one charging inner core (10) comprising an inner core frame (the portion near the lead line of numeral 41 in Fig. 2) and an electric connection device (the terminals within 10), the inner core frame being detachably connected with the device fixed to the vehicle body (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Ling discloses wherein:
the inner core frame is circularly truncated (see Fig. 2); and
an end with a smaller diameter of the inner core frame is inserted into the device fixed to the vehicle body (the portion near the lead line of numeral 41 in Fig. 2 is inserted within 311), and is detachably connected with the device fixed to the vehicle body (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Ling discloses wherein the number of the charging inner cores is two (see Fig. 1), and the two charging inner cores are a direct current charging inner core (10) and an alternating current charging inner core (20), respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Ling discloses wherein the inner core frame is connected with the device fixed to the vehicle body via a threaded coupling (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Ling discloses the elements of claim 6 are further details of an alternative fixing structure and are not positively recited, and because a different alternative was satisfied as recited in claim 5 the elements of claim 6 are not positively required.
Regarding claim 7, Ling discloses wherein an external thread (thread of 51) is provided outside the inner core frame (see Fig. 2), an internal thread (thread of 341) is provided in the device fixed to the vehicle body (see Fig. 3), and the external thread is in a threaded coupling with the internal thread (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 28, Ling discloses vehicle (see at least [0034]), comprising the electric vehicle charging socket according to claim 1 (see above).
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10,843,582 (“Feldner”).
Regarding claim 3, Ling discloses the charging inner core is a direct current charging inner core (10) or an alternating current charging inner core (20).
Ling does not disclose wherein the number of the charging inner cores is one.
However, Feldner teaches a socket with detachable inner charging core (52) and device (50), wherein the number of the charging inner cores is one (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to make the socket have one core as taught by Feldner, because this simplifies the socket and makes it more cost effective for a user.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling.
Regarding claim 8, Ling discloses wherein when the external thread is in a threaded coupling with the internal thread, a torque of the threaded coupling is applied. Ling does not disclose the torque applied as 0.1N·m to 17N·m.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the torque in a range as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Here, Ling discloses a socket for charging a vehicle, appropriately sized fasteners for such an assembly, and discloses assembling the parts, therefore a torque is disclosed. Thus, the general conditions are disclosed and it would have been obvious to discovering the optimum or workable ranges of torque application and apply the torque in the range as claimed.
Claims 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling in view of CN 112086837 A (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 9, Ling does not disclose a snap-fit slot provided in the device fixed to the vehicle body, and a snap-fit piece provided on the inner core frame and clamped to the snap-fit slot to fix the inner core frame in the device fixed to the vehicle body.
However, Yang teaches a socket structure for a vehicle connector, and teaches assembling an insertion part (1) with a diameter (see Fig. 2) by inserting the part (1) into a housing part (5), wherein a snap-fit slot (see the cantilevered portions at the open end of 5, Figs. 1 and 2) is provided in the housing part, and a snap-fit piece is provided on the insertion part (protrusions at the distal end of 1, facing outward to mate with the cantilevered members) and is clamped to the snap-fit slot to fix the insertion part to the housing part (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to provide protrusions on the inner core and snap-fit slots on the device fixed to the vehicle body, as taught by Yang, so that the core is held within the opening of the device without a need for additional fasteners.
Regarding claims 10 – 12, Ling discloses a first fastening structure (341) and a second fastening structure (342) are provided on the device fixed to the vehicle body;
the inner core frame (10) of the direct current charging inner core is a first inner core frame on which a first complementary fastening structure (51 and 11) is provided, wherein the first complementary fastening structure corresponds to the first fastening structure and is misaligned with the second fastening structure (the openings 311 and 312 are different sizes and the corresponding fastening structures are not in a same alignment); and
the inner core frame of the alternating current charging inner core (20) is a second inner core frame on which a second complementary fastening structure capable of fastening with the second fastening structure (342) is provided, wherein the second complementary fastening structure corresponds to the second fastening structure and is misaligned with the first snap-fit structure (the openings 311 and 312 are different sizes and the corresponding fastening structures are not in a same alignment).
Ling discloses a plurality of complementary fastening structures on each core and each respective opening (see Figs. 1 and 2)
Ling does not disclose the fastening structures as snap-fit fastening structures.
Ling also does not disclose one of the first snap-fit structure and the first complementary snap-fit structure is a latch hook and the other is a snap-fit slot; and one of the second snap-fit structure and the second complementary snap-fit structure is a latch hook and the other is a snap-fit slot.
Ling also does not disclose wherein a plurality of first snap-fit structures and a plurality of second snap-fit structures are provided on the device fixed to the vehicle body, a plurality of first complementary snap-fit structures corresponding to the plurality of first snap-fit structures are provided on the first inner core frame, and a plurality of second complementary snap-fit structures corresponding to the plurality of second snap-fit structures are provided on the second inner core frame.
However, Yang teaches a socket structure for a vehicle connector, and teaches assembling an insertion part (1) with a diameter (see Fig. 2) by inserting the part (1) into a housing part (5), wherein a snap-fit slot (see the cantilevered portions at the open end of 5, Figs. 1 and 2) is provided in the housing part, and a snap-fit piece is provided on the insertion part (protrusions at the distal end of 1, facing outward to mate with the cantilevered members) and is clamped to the snap-fit slot to fix the insertion part to the housing part (see Fig. 1).
Yang further teaches one of snap-fit structure and the complementary snap-fit structure is a latch hook (the cantilevered member on 5 is a resilient latch hook, see Figs. 1 and 2) and the other is a snap-fit slot (the protrusion structures of 1 forms slots for each hook, see Figs. 1 and 2); and wherein a plurality of snap-fit structures are provided on the housing part, a plurality of complementary snap-fit structures corresponding to the plurality of snap-fit structures are provided on insertion part (See Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to make the plurality of fastening structures snap-fit structures, providing each of the cores with snap-fit protrusions and each of the housing portions around the openings on the device with complementary snap-fit slots, as taught by Yang, so that each core is held by the respective complementary fastening structures within the respective openings of the device without a need for additional fasteners.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling in view of U.S. Pat. No. 8,720,968 (“Zalan”).
Regarding claim 13, Ling discloses the device fixed to the vehicle body has a cavity (311) for accommodating the charging inner core.
Ling does not disclose an end of the cavity is provided with a dust cover which is detachably connected with the device fixed to the vehicle body; and the dust cover is made of a rubber material.
However, Zalan teaches a socket device with a separate dust cover (101) attached thereto, the dust cover made of a rubber material (col. 3., lns. 61 – 64). It would have been obvious to provide a cover as taught by Zalan because this helps protect the electrical components of the socket member from outside elements.
Claims 16, 19 – 20, 22, and 24 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,069,992 (“Feldner ‘992”).
Regarding claim 16, Ling does not disclose the electric connection device is detachably connected with the inner core frame; and the electric connection device is connected with the inner core frame via a plug-in connection, a snap-fit connection, a threaded coupling having a torque of from 0.1N·m to 30N·m, or a screw connection.
However, Feldner ‘992 teaches a socket with a housing (40) and an electrical connection device (4) detachably connected with the housing see (see col. 9, lns. 2 – 29, and see the housing part at the left side of the socket which encloses the rear of the housing, Fig. 4), the electric connection device is connected with the housing via a plug-in connection.
It would have been obvious to connect the electrical connection device with the core frame as taught by Feldner ‘992, because this positions the terminals and underlying safety circuitry belonging to the particular socket structure safely and securely within the frame.
Regarding claim 19, Ling does not disclose wherein the inner core frame comprises a base of the electric connection device and a housing, the housing is sleeved at an outer side of the base of the electric connection device, the electric connection device is detachably connected with the base of the electric connection device, and the housing is detachably connected with the device fixed to the vehicle body.
However, Feldner ‘992 teaches a socket with a housing (40) and an electrical connection device (41, 42, and 45), which includes a base member (44), the housing is sleeved at an outer side of the base (see Fig. 5), the electric connection device is detachably connected with the base of the electric connection device (see col. 9, lns. 2 – 29 and Fig. 15), and the housing is detachably connected with the device fixed to the vehicle body (see col. 9, lns. 2 – 29, and see the housing part at the left side of the socket which encloses the rear of the housing, Fig. 4), the electric connection device is connected with the housing via a plug-in connection.
It would have been obvious to connect the electrical connection device with the core frame as taught by Feldner ‘992, because this positions the terminals and underlying safety circuitry belonging to the particular socket structure safely and securely within the frame.
Regarding claim 20, Feldner ‘992 further teaches wherein the electric connection device is connected with the base of the electric connection device via a plug-in connection (see col. 9, lns. 2 – 29, and see Fig. 15). It would have been obvious to connect the connection device with the base as taught by Feldner ‘992, because this positions the terminals structures as needed to line up and be ready to mate with an incoming mating connector.
Regarding claim 22, Ling as modified discloses a plurality of electric connection devices, and discloses a base, housing, and device fixed to the vehicle body, but does not disclose or result in the material of the base of the electric connection device, the housing, and the device fixed to the vehicle body being a plastic material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the base, housing and device a plastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Here, these structures are parts of an electrical connector socket, and are used to hold and guide discrete electrical conductive members and are thus insulative. Plastic is a known insulator which is easy to form into various structures and which is strong. It would have been obvious to form the parts as plastic as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 24, Ling discloses the number of the electric connection devices is two (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Ling does not disclose wherein:
the base of the electric connection device is provided with a control board and a temperature sensor for detecting a temperature of the electric connection device, and the temperature sensor is electrically connected with the control board via a data line;
the control board is a circuit board which is capable of controlling a charging current according to a temperature signal of the temperature sensor; and
the temperature sensor is an NTC temperature sensor or a PTC temperature sensor.
However, Feldner ‘992 further teaches the base (44) provided with a control board (41) and a temperature sensor (417) for detecting a temperature of the electric connection device, and the temperature sensor is electrically connected with the control board via a data line (col. 4, lns. 61 – 63);
the control board is a circuit board which is capable of controlling a charging current according to a temperature signal of the temperature sensor (col. 4, lns. 63 – 67); and
the temperature sensor is an NTC temperature sensor or a PTC temperature sensor (col. 5, lns. 1 – 17).
It would have been obvious to provide a control board as taught by Feldner ‘992, because this helps ensure the connector is monitored for abnormal operation and can shut down if a temperature abnormality is detected so as to mitigate damage to the connector and adjacent structures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D BAILLARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-0676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009.
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.
/PAUL D BAILLARGEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights