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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 17, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wharton (US 4988315).
Regarding claim 13: Wharton (Figures 1, 10, and marked versions of figure 3 below) teaches a plug for a vehicle-electrical-system-voltage receptacle of a motor vehicle, the vehicle-electrical-system-voltage receptacle having a contact arranged on a base of the vehicle-electrical-system-voltage receptacle and being connected to a pole of a first polarity of an electrical power source, and a socket connected to a pole of a second polarity of the electrical power source, the plug comprising:
a front plug portion (i.e. F in figure below) which is to be arranged at a front as the plug is inserted into the vehicle-electrical-system-voltage receptacle and on which, in the region of a central plug axis,
a first contact element (i.e. 16) for contacting the contact of the vehicle-electrical-system-voltage receptacle is arranged,
a rear plug portion (i.e. R in figure below) which is located opposite the front plug portion, and
a middle plug portion (i.e. M in figure below) which is located between the front plug portion and the rear plug portion, wherein a second contact element (i.e. 2) for contacting an interior of the socket of the vehicle-electrical-system-voltage receptacle is disposed in the middle plug portion, wherein the middle plug portion includes:
at least one first contact region (i.e. having 2), including the second contact element,
at least one further second contact region (i.e. having 3), and
at least one first and one second ventilation region (i.e. multiple grooves 4 in figure 1),
wherein a curvature of a surface of the first and the second contact region is designed to be complementary to a curvature of the interior of the socket such that, in a state of the plug disposed in the vehicle-electrical-system-voltage receptacle as intended, no distance or a first distance is established between the interior of the socket and the surface of the first contact region as well as between the interior of the socket and the surface of the second contact region (i.e. as curvature of regions having 2 and 3 are in figure 10), and
wherein a curvature of a surface of the first and the second ventilation region (i.e. curvature of surface of each 4) deviates from the curvature of the interior of the socket such that, in the state of the plug disposed in the vehicle-electrical-system-voltage receptacle as intended, a second distance is established between the surface of the first ventilation region and the interior of the socket and between the surface of the second ventilation region and the interior of the socket, the second distance being greater than the first distance between the interior of the socket and the surface of the first contact region (i.e. as in figure 10), characterized in that:
the first and the second contact region and the first and the second ventilation region in relation to the plug axis are each arranged opposite one another (i.e. left and right sides in figure 10) and, in the state of the plug disposed in the vehicle-electrical-system-voltage receptacle as intended, at least two ventilation channels (i.e. three 27 in figure 10) are formed between the front plug portion and the rear plug portion and that at least one of the first or the second ventilation region extends, in the direction of the central plug axis, beyond the axial length of the first and the second contact region.
PNG
media_image1.png
159
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17: Wharton teaches the plug according to claim 13, characterized in that the surface of the at least first ventilation region is at least partially concavely curved (i.e. as in the figure above).
Regarding claim 20: Wharton (Figure 5) teaches an electrical device (i.e. device attached to 13) which is designed to be operated with electrical power, comprising a connection element (i.e. 1) for connecting the electrical device to an electrical power source, characterized in that the connection element is designed as a plug according to claim 13.
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 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wharton in view of SAE (SAE web page).
Regarding claim 15: Wharton teaches the plug according to claim 13, but does not specifically teach characterized in that the plug is designed at least partially in accordance with an SAE J563 specification or a DIN ISO 4165 specification.
However, SAE teaches the J563 specification as standard for cigarette lighters (i.e. see attached web page).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the plug taught by Wharton at least partially in accordance with SAE J563 or DIN ISO 4165 specifications so as to assure compatibility with the desired devices.
Claims 14 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wharton.
Regarding claim 14: Wharton teaches the plug according to claim 13, but does not specifically teach characterized in that the first distance is 0.01 mm to 0.6 mm, and/or in that the second distance is at least 0.3 mm.
However, it has been held that, “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40oC and 80oC and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100oC and an acid concentration of 10%.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the second distance taught by Wharton to be at least 0.3mm so as to routinely optimize heat dissipation via the ventilation regions. Wharton failing to disclose specific measurements for these parameters further shows that the depth of the grooves is a tweakable parameter which does not provide unanticipated benefits.
Regarding claim 16: Wharton teaches the plug according to claim 13, but does not specifically teach characterized in that the surface of the at least first ventilation region is at least partially designed as a flat surface.
However, Wharton (Figure 10) teaches wherein the ventilation channels (i.e. 27) are at least partially designed as a flat surface (i.e. as in figure 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the surface of the at least first ventilation region taught by Wharton to be at least partially designed as a flat surface as taught by the ventilation channels of Wharton. This is a design choice for the ventilation regions which does not impact their function.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wharton and Esses (US 2014/0342600 A1).
Regarding claim 18: Wharton teaches the plug according to claim 13, but does not specifically teach characterized in that the surface of the at least first ventilation region is at least partially convexly curved.
However, Esses (Figure 1) teaches wherein the surface of the at least first ventilation region (i.e. portion of 14 between 18 and 20) is at least partially convexly curved (i.e. as in figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plug taught by Wharton to have the surface of the at least first ventilation region be at least partially convexly curved as taught by Esses as a design choice for the shape of the plug.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wharton and Butler (US 2021/0083405 A1).
Regarding claim 19: Wharton teaches the plug according to claim 13, characterized in that the first contact element of the plug formed in the region of the central plug axis comprises a contact pin (i.e. as is 16)
but does not specifically teach an elastomer sleeve comprising silicone surrounding the contact pin.
However, Butler (Figure 2A) an elastomer sleeve (i.e. 116) comprising silicone (i.e. as described in paragraph [0042) surrounding the contact pin (i.e. 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plug taught by Wharton to have an elastomer sleeve as taught by Butler so as to seal the front of the plug as well as provide additional bias to the contact pin.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wharton and Lanni (US 2003/0228792 A1).
Regarding claim 21: Wharton teaches the electrical device according to claim 20, but does not specifically teach characterized in that the device comprises a receptacle for the plug, in which the plug can be disposed when the electrical device is not connected to the electrical power source via the plug.
However, Lanni (Figure 2) teaches characterized in that the device (i.e. 1) comprises a receptacle (i.e. 13) for the plug (i.e. 9), in which the plug can be disposed when the electrical device is not connected to the electrical power source via the plug.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Wharton with the device having a receptacle as taught by Lanni so as to protect the plug when not in use as well as to provide neater storage.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wharton and Beski (US 2006/0199436 A1).
Regarding claim 22: Wharton teaches the electrical device according to claim 20, but does not specifically teach characterized in that the electrical device is a compressed air supply system with a compressor.
However, Beski teaches characterized in that the electrical device is a compressed air supply system (i.e. tire inflator and electrical plug of paragraph [0005]) with a compressor (i.e. tire inflator of paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the electrical device taught by Wharton with a compressed air supply system as taught by Beski so as to use the device for the desired purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that at least one of the ventilation regions taught by Wharton does not extend beyond the axial length of the first and second contact regions, however, the marked version of figure 3 below shows the front and rear ends of the first ventilation region (V1 and V2 respectively) extending further to the front of the plug than either of the front ends of the first and second contact regions (E1, E1’) and further to the back than either of the rear ends of the first and second contact regions (E2, E2’). Therefore, Wharton indeed teaches at least one of the first or the second ventilation region extends, in the direction of the central plug axis, beyond the axial length of the first and the second contact region.
PNG
media_image2.png
415
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Gregory Mangot whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
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 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.
/GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights