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 .
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 features of “a coolant return tube, wherein the fluid from the longitudinal flow channel is redirected at a charging handle into the coolant return tube” as claimed in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim “22”, second occurrence, has been renumbered --23--.
Claims 22 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: a period -- . -- should be included at the end of each of claims 22 and 23. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-7 and 22 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.
In claims 4-7, “at least one spoke” and “a plurality of spokes” are unclear to how these relate to “at least one spoke” cited in claim 1.
Claim 22 is a redundant of claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3-5, 8-11, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (CN 206864231).
Hu et al. discloses an apparatus comprising: a conductor (11); a tube (13) disposed around the conductor; an extension element extending from an interior surface of the conductor tube and making contact with the conductor, wherein the tube and the extension element are integrally formed ([0026] of the machine translation) as a single piece, and wherein the extension element comprises at least one spoke (14) defining a longitudinal flow channel (15) configured to direct a fluid flow along the conductor; and a coolant return tube (2), wherein the fluid from the longitudinal flow channel is redirected at a charging handle into the coolant return tube ([0031], in through space 15 and out to pipe 2) (re-claim 1). Hu et al. also discloses that the extension element comprises at least one spoke (14) extending directly from the interior surface of the tube (re-claim 4); the extension element comprises a plurality of spokes extending directly from the interior surface of the tube (re-claims 5 and 13); the apparatus is disposed in an electric vehicle (EV) charging cable (re-claims 8 and 16); the fluid is disposed between the conductor, the interior surface of the tube, and the extension element (re-claim 9); the fluid is caused to circulate (re-claim 10); and the fluid cools the conductor (re-claim 11).
Re-claims 3 and 15, it has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it, extruded, which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018).
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.
Claims 1, 6-11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoon (2023/0084987).
Zoon discloses an apparatus comprising: a conductor (3); a tube (4) disposed around the conductor; an extension element (6) extending from an interior surface of the conductor tube and making contact with the conductor, wherein the tube and the extension element are integrally formed as one piece ([0037], spacers 6 extending from the inner surface of the insulation 4…protrusions 8 and insulation 4 manufactured by extruding), and wherein the extension element comprises at least one spoke (8) defining a longitudinal flow channel (5) configured to direct a fluid flow along the conductor; and a coolant tube (11) (re-claims 1, 13, and 17).
Zoon does not disclose the coolant tube (11) being a coolant return tube, wherein the fluid from the longittudinal flow channel is redirected at the charging handle (21) into the coolant tube (11) (re-claims 1, 13, and 17). In other words, Zoon discloses the coolant flowing towards the charging handle (21) via the coolant tube (11) and back to the cooling unit (22) via channel (5).
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the apparatus of Zoon such that the coolant flows from the cooling unit towards the charging handle (21) via channel (5) and returns at the charging handle back to the cooling unit via the coolant tube (11) since a mere reversal of such movement was held to be an obvious modification. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400.
Re-claims 6-7 and 17, Zoon discloses the plurality of spokes (8) extending helically from the interior surface of the tube ([0036], spiraling).
Re-claims 8, 16, 20, and 22, Zoon discloses the apparatus being disposed in an EV charging cable.
Re-claim 9, Zoon discloses the fluid being disposed between the conductor, the interior surface of the tube, and the extension element.
Re-claim 10, Zoon discloses the fluid being caused to circulate.
Re-claims 11 and 23, Zoon discloses the fluid cooling the conductor.
Re-claim 19, it has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it, extruded, which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018).
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoon in view of Sasamura et al. (2011/0198106).
Zoon, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the tube and extension element comprising silicon. Sasamura et al. discloses an apparatus (insulated wire, Fig. 1) comprising a tube (a one piece 3 surrounding conductor 2) which is comprised of silicon ([0036], silicon-system flame-retarding agent). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the tube and extension element, a one-piece, of Zoon to comprise silicon as taught by Sasamura et al. to provide the apparatus with flame retardancy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, and 17 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that there is no mention that the beads and tuber are formed as a single piece, and there is no mention of a charging handle. Examiner would disagree. Zoon does teach the spokes (8) and the tube (4) being formed as a single piece. Specifically, Zoon, [0037], discloses that the spokes (protrusions 8) extend fron the inner surface of the tube 4, and that the protrusions 8 and the tube 4 manufactured by extruding. Zoon also teach a charging handle, i.e., the charging connector 21 shown in Figure 4.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights