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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 70, 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 70, 76, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 69-74, 77, 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewitt et al. (US 10003163 B2).
In regard to claim 69, Hewitt et al. discloses a mains power inlet 3 for an electrical connector, the power inlet 3 comprising:
a) a housing (see annotated drawing below) including a recessed cavity (see annotated drawing below); and
b) at least two electrical pins 9 (col. 3, lines 24-27) that are arranged inside the recessed cavity.
However, Hewitt et al. does not disclose the height H (see annotated drawing below) of the recessed cavity is less than approximately 7 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the height of the recessed cavity, to the extent that Hewitt et al. does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the height of the recessed cavity would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
In regard to claim 70, Hewitt et al. discloses the housing has a box shape.
In regard to claim 71, Hewitt et al. does not disclose the power inlet 3 and connector achieve a maximum working power of 750 W or the power inlet and connector have a maximum rated current of 3 A.
The recitation regarding “a maximum working power of 750 W or a maximum rated current of 3 A” has not been given a significant patentable weight since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In regard to claim 72, Hewitt et al. discloses the power inlet 3 comprises contact points (the proximal ends of 9 or 7 located inside the housing that are electrically connected to the internal wires of the electrical cord 5) that are attached or located near an external surface of the housing, the contact points configured to provide an electrical connection to an electrical cord 5.
In regard to claim 73, Hewitt et al. discloses the housing includes at least two support sections (this is inherent of the device, see annotated drawing below) located inside the recessed cavity, in which each support section is configured to securely hold a pin 7, 9 in place.
In regard to claim 74, Hewitt et al. discloses each support section is located orthogonally to a pin.
[AltContent: textbox (support section)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (H)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (recessed cavity)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (housing)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
492
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 77, Hewitt et al. discloses a connector for connecting into a mains power inlet 3, the mains power inlet comprising at least two pins 9, in which the connector comprises:
a housing (see annotated drawing below) including at least two recessed openings or holes 14 for receiving each pin 9 of the mains power inlet 3, in which the recessed holes 14 include electrical contacts 24.
However, Hewitt et al. does not disclose the height h (see annotated drawing below) of the housing is less than approximately 7 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the height of the housing, to the extent that Hewitt et al. does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the height of the housing would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
In regard to claim 78, Hewitt et al. discloses the housing has a box shape.
[AltContent: textbox (h)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (housing)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
450
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 69, 75-80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noschese (US 5254019 A).
In regard to claim 69, Noschese discloses a mains power inlet 14 for an electrical connector 14, the power inlet 14 comprising:
a) a housing 54 including a recessed cavity 62; and
b) at least two electrical pins 56, 57, 58 that are arranged inside the recessed cavity.
However, Noschese does not disclose the height of the recessed cavity 62 is less than approximately 7 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the height of the recessed cavity, to the extent that Noschese does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the height of the recessed cavity would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
In regard to claim 75, Noschese discloses the power inlet 14 comprises three electrical pins 56, 57, 58 and in which the three pins are coplanar and aligned horizontally along a width of the recessed cavity 62.
In regard to claim 76, Noschese discloses the pins 56, 57, 58 are oriented horizontally in relation to the width of the recessed cavity 62.
In regard to claim 77, Noschese discloses a connector for connecting into a mains power inlet 14, the mains power inlet 14 comprising at least two pins 56, 57, 58, in which the connector comprises:
a housing 20 including at least two recessed openings or holes 22, 23, 24 for receiving each pin 56, 57, 58 of the mains power inlet 14, in which the recessed holes 22, 23, 24 include electrical contacts.
However, Noschese does not disclose the height h (see annotated drawing below) of the housing is less than approximately 7 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the height of the housing, to the extent that Noschese does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the height of the housing would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
In regard to claim 78, Noschese discloses the housing 20 has a box shape.
In regard to claim 79, Noschese discloses the housing 20 includes three recessed openings or holes 22, 23, 24 and in which the three recessed openings or holes are coplanar and aligned horizontally along the width of the housing 20.
In regard to claim 80, Noschese discloses a rigid insulating element (this is inherent of the device) is located between two branches of the electrical contacts.
Claim(s) 69, 81-83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homann et al. (US 2005/0020133 A1).
In regard to claim 69, Homann et al. discloses a mains power inlet 20 for an electrical connector, the power inlet 20 comprising:
a) a housing (see fig. 1B) including a recessed cavity (see fig. 1B); and
b) at least two electrical pins 22 that are arranged inside the recessed cavity.
However, Homann et al. does not disclose the height of the recessed cavity is less than approximately 7 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the height of the recessed cavity, to the extent that Homann et al. does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the height of the recessed cavity would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
In regard to claim 81, Homann et al. discloses an electronic device T3’ (see fig. 4) integrated with a mains power inlet 20 for an electrical connector according to claim 69.
In regard to claim 82, Homann et al. discloses the power inlet 20 is located at the center of or inside the electronic device T3’, and in which the electronic device includes a passageway that is configured to provide a path for a cable NL including a matching connector 10 to be inserted into the power inlet 20 (see fig. 4).
In regard to claim 83, Homann et al. does not disclose the passageway has a height that is less than approximately 10 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the height of the passageway, to the extent that Homann et al. does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the height of the passage way would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO D. TA whose telephone number is (571)272-2014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571) 272-3560. 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.
Tdt
4/19/2026
/THO D TA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights