CHARGING GUN FOR CHARGING ELECTRIC VEHICLE

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after 2013/03/16, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. TW 111208357, filed on 2022 August 03. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2023/05/22 was filed before the mailing date of the application on 2022/06/09. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings FIG. 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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. Applicant notes in ¶[0015 – 0016] that FIG. 1 “is a schematic diagram of an existing charging gun”. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: A title that reflects the inventive concept of this particular Charging Gun for Charging Electric Vehicle, that separates it from other charging guns for charging electric vehicles. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “parallel in one direction” is unclear and potentially inaccurate, since wires that are described as “parallel” are typically parallel to each other (i.e., extending in the same direction). Appropriate correction is required. 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. 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 non-obviousness. Claim(s) 1 – 3, 6 – 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG (CN 111660842 A), further in view of KRAMER (US 4,006,958) and BIN (CN 205911785 U). In re claim 1, ZHANG discloses a charging gun for charging an electric vehicle (1), comprising: a charging connector (contact head 3 on charging gun body 1), having an insertion portion (3) and a turning portion connected to the insertion portion (handle 2 connected to charging gun body 1), and a charging cable (8), connected to the turning portion. ZHANG is silent to wherein an included angle between the insertion portion and the turning portion is greater than or equal to 90 degrees and less than or equal to 100 degrees; and the charging cable comprising a plurality of wires arranged in parallel in one direction. KRAMER discloses wherein an included angle between the insertion portion and the turning portion is greater than or equal to 90 degrees and less than or equal to 100 degrees (col. 1, ll. 12–17, 42–47). A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have been motivated to adopt the right-angle relationship, as taught by KRAMER, between the insertion portion and the handle portion of ZHANG’s gun, to avoid forcing the cable to bend sharply at the connector exit, which reduces repeated flexing and stress. KRAMER is silent to the charging cable comprising a plurality of wires arranged in parallel in one direction. BIN discloses a charging cable comprising a plurality of wires (211) arranged in parallel in one direction (FIG. 2 illustrates cores 211 arranged side-by-side in outer cover 212, extending along the length direction). Further, flat cables are old and well known in the art in several examples of power and signal wiring. It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to substitute ZHANG’s cable with BIN’s flat cable for improved crush resistance, easier coiling and storage, and more compact packaging during shipping. In re claim 2, ZHANG is silent to wherein the insertion portion is substantially perpendicular to the turning portion. KRAMER discloses wherein the insertion portion is substantially perpendicular to the turning portion (col. 1, ll. 12–17, 42–47). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to adopt the right-angle relationship as taught by KRAMER to avoid forcing the cable to bend sharply at the connector exit, which reduces repeated flexing and stress. In re claim 3, ZHANG is silent to wherein the direction is substantially perpendicular to an extending direction of the wires. KRAMER discloses wherein the direction is substantially perpendicular (col. 1, ll. 12–17, 42–47). A PHOSITA would have been motivated to adopt the right-angle relationship as taught by KRAMER to avoid forcing the cable to bend sharply at the connector exit, which reduces repeated flexing and stress. KRAMER is silent to an extending direction of the wires. BIN discloses an extending direction of the wires (FIG. 2 illustrates cores 211 arranged side-by-side in outer cover 212, extending along the length direction). It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to substitute ZHANG’s cable with BIN’s flat cable for improved crush resistance, easier coiling and storage, and more compact packaging during shipping. In re claims 6 – 8, ZHANG discloses at least one magnetic element (13), arranged on a side surface of the charging cable facing the electric vehicle when the charging connector is inserted in the electric vehicle (magnet 13 is on the inner side of protective cover – vehicle-facing side of the gun – used to adhere the gun to the vehicle body). Claim(s) 4 – 5, 9 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG (CN 111660842 A), further in view of KRAMER (US 4,006,958), BIN (CN 205911785 U), and YIN (CN 206584767 U). In re claim 4, ZHANG is silent to at least one light-emitting element, arranged on at least a side surface of the charging cable. YIN discloses at least one light-emitting element (1), arranged on at least a side surface of the charging cable (¶[0038 – 0043]). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate at least one LED patch lamp or lamp string on the side surface ZHANG’s gun cable to visualize charging. In re claim 5, ZHANG is silent to wherein the light-emitting element is arranged at a position other than a side surface of the charging cable facing a body of the electric vehicle. YIN discloses wherein the light-emitting element (1) is arranged at a position other than a side surface of the charging cable facing a body of the electric vehicle ((¶[0038 – 0043]). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to choose the LED placement taught by YIN to maximize visibility and avoid interference or contact with the vehicle. In re claims 9 – 10, ZHANG discloses at least one magnetic element (13), arranged on a side surface of the charging cable facing the electric vehicle when the charging connector is inserted in the electric vehicle (magnet 13 is on the inner side of protective cover – vehicle-facing side of the gun – used to adhere the gun to the vehicle body). Prior Art Disclaimer The prior art applied in this Office Action includes foreign patent documents that were originally published in languages other than English. Machine-generated translations of these documents were utilized to assess their relevance and content. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHANN DJANAL-MANN whose telephone number is (571)272-4697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 - 17:00. 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 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. /D. JOHANN DJANAL-MANN/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 /DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859