DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are currently pending. Claims 1-19 are maintained in rejection despite Applicants arguments/amendments filed 05/12/2026. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2016/036328 A1 (“Canayakin”).
Referring to Claim 13: Canayakin discloses an outlet apparatus comprising:
a multitap body (G1, F6) comprising faces respectively comprising electrical receptacles configured to mate with electrical connectors (Fig. 8), the multitap body having a shape matching the shape of a multitap receptacle (Fig. 15);
a housing body (F) comprising the multitap receptacle, wherein the multitap receptacle is configured to detachably house the multitap body (page 7, lines 17-21) (Fig. 15); and
a conductive cable (wound around cable reel A) connected to the multitap body and electrically connected with the electrical receptacles, wherein the outlet apparatus is configured to allow the conductive cable to extend out of the housing body in correspondence with extraction of the multitap body from the multitap receptacle (page 7, lines 17-21) (Fig. 15).
Referring to Claim 19: Canayakin discloses outlet apparatus of claim 13, wherein the outlet apparatus is configured to:
inhibit retraction of the electrical cable responsive to a first movement (pulling out of the receptacle) of the electrical cable, and
cause retraction of the electrical cable responsive to a second movement (pushing into the receptacle) of the electrical cable (page 7, lines 17-21) (Fig. 15).
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) 1, 2, 8-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canayakin in view of Woods (US 2012/0034816 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Canayakin teaches an outlet apparatus for a wall, comprising:
an outlet body (F) installed inside a wall (abstract), the outlet body configured to house a multitap (F6) (Fig. 15);
the multitap detachably attached to, and housed within, the outlet body, and comprising power outlets formed to mate with electrical connectors (Fig. 15); and
a cable (wound around cable reel A) providing electrical connectivity between the multitap and a power source of the vehicle that is configured to supply power to the multitap via the cable, wherein the cable is configured to extend from the outlet body when the multitap is detached from the outlet body (page 7, lines 20-21).
Canayakin does not specifically teach that the outlet apparatus is installed inside a vehicle. However, Woods teaches vehicular retractable cable systems, wherein the outlet body (100) is installed in the console (14) wall of a vehicle (Fig. 1) (Para. [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Canayakin to install the outlet body in the console wall of a vehicle, as taught by Woods, in order to provide vehicle passengers with a conveniently retractable power source outlet with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 2: Canayakin further teaches the outlet apparatus, wherein:
the multitap is formed in a cuboid shape (Fig. 8) (page 7, lines 20-21); and
outer surfaces of the multitap respectively comprise the outlets (Fig. 8).
Referring to Claim 8: Canayakin further teaches the outlet apparatus, wherein:
the cable is mechanically connected to an elastic member (A, B, C) and is wound around the elastic member (Figs. 6, 10, 12 and 15); and
the elastic member provides a rotational elastic force in a direction in which the cable is wound around the elastic member (page 7, lines 17-21).
Referring to Claim 9: Canayakin teaches a reel brake (D) but does not specifically teach the locking member claimed. However, However, Woods teaches vehicular retractable cable systems, wherein a locking member (134) engaged with the elastic member (128) is configured to lock in correspondence with the cable (160) being pulled outward from the outlet body (110), and when the locking member is locked the elastic member exerts a retraction force on the elastic member which thereby prevents retraction of the cable (Para. [0021]) (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Canayakin to use a locking member, as taught by Woods, to prevent retraction during use of the outlet with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 10: Canayakin teaches a reel brake (D) but does not specifically teach the locking member configured to unlock with retraction, as claimed. However, Woods teaches vehicular retractable cable systems, wherein the locking member (134) is configured to unlock in correspondence with a retraction of the cable (160) (Para. [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Canayakin to use a locking/unlocking member, as taught by Woods, to prevent retraction during use of the outlet, and otherwise conveniently allow automatic retraction, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 11: Canayakin teaches a spring (C) (Figs. 11 and 12) but does not specifically teach a spiral spring, as claimed. However, Woods teaches vehicular retractable cable systems, wherein the elastic member comprises a spiral spring (128) (Fig. 2) (Para. [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Canayakin to use a locking member and spiral spring, as taught by Woods, to prevent retraction during use of the outlet, and otherwise conveniently allow automatic retraction, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 12: Canayakin further teaches the outlet apparatus, wherein a shape of a recess in the outlet body (F) is the same as a shape of the multitap (F6) (Fig. 15).
Referring to Claim 14: Canayakin does not specifically teach that the outlet apparatus is comprised in the passenger compartment of a vehicle. However, Woods teaches vehicular retractable cable systems, wherein the outlet apparatus (100) is comprised in the passenger compartment of a vehicle (Fig. 1) (Para. [0002]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Canayakin to locate the outlet apparatus in the passenger compartment of a vehicle, as taught by Woods, in order to provide vehicle passengers with a conveniently retractable power source outlet with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canayakin in view of Woods and Tracey et al. (US 2013/0171866 A1).
Referring to Claim 3: Canayakin further teaches the outlet apparatus, wherein the multitap (F6) comprises a front surface facing away from the outlet body (Fig. 15)
As noted by strikethrough above, Canayakin fails to teach a gripping groove configured to be gripped by fingers when detaching the multitap from the outlet body. However, Tracey teaches an electrical cord with wear ring, comprising a gripping groove (31) configured to be gripped by fingers when plugging and unplugging a plug into the multitap receptacle (24) (Para. [0042]) (Fig. 5A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Canayakin to provide a gripping groove, as taught by Tracey, in order to provide a convenient place for fingers to grip the multitap during operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 4: Canayakin fails to teach a gripping groove, wherein the gripping groove is formed in a corner position of the multitap. However, Tracey teaches an electrical cord with wear ring, comprising a gripping groove (31), wherein the gripping groove is formed in a corner position of the multitap (24) (Para. [0042]) (Fig. 5A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Canayakin to provide a gripping groove in a corner position of the multitap, as taught by Tracey, in order to provide a convenient place for fingers to grip the multitap during operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 5: Canayakin fails to teach a gripping groove, wherein the gripping groove comprises a curved shape and is recessed in a corner portion of the front surface of the multitap. However, Tracey teaches an electrical cord with wear ring, comprising a gripping groove (31), wherein the gripping groove comprises a curved shape and is recessed in a corner portion of the front surface of the multitap (24) (Para. [0042]) (Fig. 5A). Examiner notes that the surface of receptacle 24 of Tracey may be broadly interpreted as a “front surface” relative to the rear surface of wear ring 100 having cutout 33. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Canayakin to provide a gripping groove as a curved recess in a corner position of the front surface of the multitap, as taught by Tracey, in order to provide a convenient place for fingers to grip the multitap during operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canayakin in view of Woods and Mateski et al. (US 2014/0034382 A1).
Referring to Claim 6: Canayakin further teaches outlet apparatus, wherein:
the outlet body (F) comprises:
a seating receptacle recessed in the outlet body (Fig. 15); and
As noted by strikethrough above, Canayakin fails to teach a cover as claimed. However, Mateski teaches an electrical cable for the energy supply of vehicles, comprising a seating receptacle (36) recessed in the outlet body (Fig. 5); and
a cover (30) configured to open and close over the seating receptacle when the connector assembly (18) is attached to the outlet body within the seating receptacle (Para. [0075]) (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Canayakin to provide a cover, as taught by Mateski, in order to close the receptacle and protect the device from contaminants when not in use with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canayakin in view of Woods, Mateski and Gronewoller et al. (US 2016/0173160 A1).
Referring to Claim 7: Canayakin fails to teach that the multitap and the seating receptacle are configured to provide a magnetic attraction force that attaches the multitap to the seating receptacle. However, Gronewoller teaches an electronic device case with peripheral storage, wherein “[e]ach of docking receptacles 1291 and 1292 may include a snap, a tab, a clip, a magnet, a flexible element, a spring, a twist lock feature, a threaded portion, a friction fit, an interference fit, a piece of compliant material, or another component which provides some kind of friction, stiction, adhesion, and/or retention function to removably retain earbuds 1281 and 1282, respectively.” (emphasis added) (Para. [0085]) (Fig. 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Canayakin to configure the multitap and seating receptacle with magnets, as suggested by Gronewoller, in order to easily seat the multitap within the receptacle with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canayakin in view of Vara (US 6,003,804)
Referring to Claim 15: Canayakin further teaches the outlet apparatus, wherein the shape of the multitap body (G1, F6) is cuboid (Fig. 8), and wherein one of the faces of the multitap body is an outer face that faces away from the housing body when the multitap body is within the multitap receptacle (Fig. 15),
As noted by strikethrough above, Canayakin fails to teach that the outer face comprises notches configured for finger placement therein. However, Vara teaches an enhanced storage system for electrical appliances, powercords and adapters, wherein the outer face (242) of the cord storage device (250) comprises notches (248) configured for finger placement therein (Figs. 9-11) (Col. 10, lines 10-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Canayakin to provide notches in the outer face of the multitap, as suggested by Vara, in order to allow a user to easily grip and remove the multitap from the receptacle with their fingers with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 16: Canayakin further teaches the outlet apparatus, wherein the faces of the multitap body (G1, F6) include two side faces that face in opposite directions relative to each other (Fig. 8).
Referring to Claim 17: Canayakin further teaches the outlet apparatus, wherein the faces of the multitap body (G1, F6) include another side face that is perpendicular to the two side faces (Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canayakin in view of Mateski et al. (US 2014/0034382 A1).
Referring to Claim 18: Canayakin fails to teach a sliding door as claimed. However, Mateski teaches an electrical cable for the energy supply of vehicles, wherein the housing body (24) further comprises a sliding door (30) configured to slide in one direction to cover the multitap receptacle and in another direction to uncover the multitap receptacle (Para. [0076]) (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Canayakin to provide a cover, as taught by Mateski, in order to close the receptacle and protect the device from contaminants when not in use with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the anticipation rejection of claims 13 and 19, Applicant makes four primary arguments: 1) Canayakin does not disclose the claimed “multitap body”; 2) there is no disclosure of a multitap body with faces comprising electrical receptacles; 3) there is no disclosure of a multitap receptacle detachably housing a multitap body; and 4) there is no disclosure of cable extension in correspondence with extraction of a multitap body. Examiner responds as follows: 1) Canayakin discloses a multitap body referred to as an “independent multi-plug outlet (G1)” (page 6, lines 3-10) (Fig. 8) which is identified in relevant Figs. 13-16 using the reference character “F6”, which is why this character is also cited in the rejection; 2) Fig. 8 of Canayakin clearly depicts independent multi-plug outlet (G1) as a multitap body with faces comprising electrical receptacles; 3) Canayakin’s multitap receptacle (F6) detachably houses a multitap body (G1) via the push and release/lock mechanism (F5) (see Figs. 8, 15 and 18); and 4) Canayakin clearly discloses a cable extension (via spring activated cable reel A) in correspondence with extraction of a multitap body (G1) (page 7, lines 12-13 and 17-21) (see also claim 5). Thus, the anticipation rejection is upheld despite these arguments.
Regarding the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, Applicant makes five primary arguments, which will be responded to in order.
First, Applicant argues that Canayakin is not a vehicle reference. Examiner responds that the obviousness rejection acknowledges this and relies on Woods for the teaching of being installed in the console wall of a vehicle.
Second, Applicant argues that Canayakin does not disclose “the multitap detachably attached to, and housed within the outlet body,” because the examiner cites to both “G1, F6” together as if they correspond to the claimed multitap. Further, applicant argues that Canayakin fails to teach a multitap that is detachably attached to and housed within an outlet body because this requires a specific relationship between the outlet body, the multitap and the cable. Examiner responds that Canayakin discloses a multitap body referred to as an “independent multi-plug outlet (G1)” (page 6, lines 3-10) (Fig. 8) which is identified in relevant Figs. 13-16 using the reference character “F6”, which is why this character is also cited in the rejection. Further, Canayakin’s multitap (G1) is housed within outlet body (F) in the independent multi-plug outlet (F6) via detachable push and release/lock mechanism (F5) (see Figs. 8, 15 and 18) and can be extended/retracted via the spring activated cable reel (A) (page 7, lines 12-13 and 17-21) (see also claim 5). The figures of Canayakin are not mutually exclusive embodiments. Thus, Canayakin reasonably satisfies the claim language.
Third, Applicant argues that the rejection does not establish the required functional relationship between the detachment of the multitap and the extension of the cable because Canayakin doesn’t explicitly show the cable reel extending from the outlet body when the multitap is detached. Examiner responds that Canayakin’s retractable cable (not shown) inherently extends from the housing since it powers the independent retractable multi-plug outlet (page 7, lines 19-21) (see also claim 5) (see Figs. 8, 15 and 18). The detachable multitap of Canayakin would not function if it were not electrically connected by the retractable cable. The fact that the cable is not explicitly shown does not detract from what the reference teaches as a whole.
Fourth, Applicant argues that the combination of Woods and Canayakin would result in installing Canayakin’s in-wall building apparatus in a vehicle and that the rationale to combine does not explain the structural reconfiguration needed to convert a built-in wall assembly to a vehicle. Examiner responds that this is a piecemeal analysis of the references, relying on a bodily incorporation of the entirety of Canayakin within Woods, which is not what it recited within the rejection. Regarding bodily incorporation of references, it has been held that "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(III). Further, it would be well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to reconfigure the outlet apparatus of Canayakin from a wall assembly to a vehicle console wall. In response to the Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
Fifth, Applicant argues that Canayakin is designed for installation in the air gap between drywall panels and is tailored to building construction, and thus, the combination does not teach the specific claimed arrangement as a whole. Examiner responds again that this is a piecemeal analysis of the references, and it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI). Further, in response to Applicant’s potential argument that Canayakin is non-analogous art, it has been held that in order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I). In this case, Canayakin is both (1) from the same field of retractable outlets; and (2) reasonably pertinent to the problems faced by the inventor with retractable outlets and multitap outlets.
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 ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights