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 § 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) 1-5 and 11-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0249766 (“Westfall”) in view of U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0065305 (“Amit”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,784,338 (“Parrett”).
Regarding claim 1, Westfall discloses a charger adapter system (title) for an electric vehicle charger having a charger head and a charger hose (see FIG 2), comprising:
a port to port adapter (FIG 2:14).
Westfall does not disclose a first magnetic counterpart attached to the port to port adapter, a mount, a second magnetic counterpart attached to the mount, a tether connected to the port to port adapter, or a lock connected to the tether.
Amit discloses a cable management and storage system (FIG 6A) wherein a first magnetic counterpart (see annotated FIG 6A, below) is attached to a first portion of an electrical charging cable, a mount (e.g., 602) is provided on a second part of the electrical charging cable (see annotated FIG 6A, below), and a second magnetic counterpart is attached to the mount (see para. [0059], which provides that “attachment mechanisms 602” may comprise “magnets or electromagnets”).
PNG
media_image1.png
847
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Amit discloses placement of the first magnetic counterpart on a mount provided on the electrical charging cable, the reference itself stands for the broader proposition that magnets may be relied upon to secure bulky or lose elements in a tidy fashion when not in use. As such, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Westfall by providing a first magnetic counterpart attached to the port to port adapter and further providing a second magnetic counterpart on a mount which is secured to the electric charging cable of the electric vehicle charger, as is generally taught by Amit, for the purposes of magnetically securing the port to port adapter to its associated electrical charging cable when the adapter is not in use.
Parrett discloses an adapter security tethering system (FIG 2) wherein a tether (12) is attached to a port to port adapter (e.g., 18) at a first end and attached to a lock (30) at a second end (as shown). While Parrett discloses a looped wire cable having both ends affixed to the lock, the reference stands for the broader proposition that a port to port adapter may be secured to an associated electrical cable with a tethering cable for the purposes of preventing theft or loss of the adapter when it is not in use. As such, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to further modify Westfall by providing a tether connected at a first end to the port to port adapter and connected at a second end to a lock, as generally taught by Parrett, for the purposes of preventing theft of the adapter, preventing unintentional loss or droppage of the adapter, and generally providing convenient access to the adapter.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Westfall in view of Amit and Parrett (“the first combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the port to port adapter being for connection to the charger head (see Westfall, FIG 2), the mount being for connection to the charger hose (see Amit FIG 6A, wherein cable 110 would be understood as corresponding to the cable of the EV charger depicted in FIG 2 of Westfall when properly considered as the combination of references), and the lock being for locking to the electric vehicle charger (see Parrett FIG 2, wherein lock 30 is affixed to electrical cable 28, and wherein electrical cable 28 corresponds to the cable of the EV charger depicted in FIG 2 of Westfall when properly considered as the combination of references).
Regarding claim 3, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 and further discloses the mount comprising a locking mechanism to restrict movement with respect to the charger hose (inherent to Amit; see discussion below).
Amit discloses the “mount” of the combined references. As depicted in FIGS 6A and 6B, mounts 602 are attached to cable 110. There is no discussion or suggestion within Amit that, once placed, the mounts are capable of moving along the length of cable 110. Indeed, the disclosure itself suggests that the mounts are not moveable, as they serve the purpose of compactly storing the cable and preventing tangling or damage (para. [0058]). If the mounts 602 were able to freely move along the length of the charger cable, they would be inadequate for their disclosed purpose of preventing tangling, and would furthermore be inadequate for compact storage because the cable would be able to simply “unfurl” by sliding through the mounts.
Thus, Examiner finds that Amit inherently discloses the mount comprising “a locking mechanism” that “restricts movement” of the mount “with respect to the charger hose” because Amit does not suggest the mounts are moveable and, moreover, inferring them to be mobile would result in the mounts being inadequate for their disclosed purposes.
Regarding claim 4, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the first magnetic counterpart being a first magnet (Amit, para. [0059]) and the second magnetic counterpart being a second magnet (Amit, para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and furthermore inherently discloses the first magnet and/or second magnet being a neodymium magnet.
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). See also MPEP §2123. Additionally, a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
Here, the prior art (and more specifically the Amit reference) generically discloses the use of “magnets” or “electromagnets” in paragraph [0059]. When juxtaposed against “electromagnets,” one of ordinary skill would reasonably infer that “magnets” encompasses any appropriate type of permanent magnet. Neodymium magnets are a ubiquitously well-known type of permanent magnet, know particularly for having strong magnetic interactions. One of ordinary skill in the art, interpreting the Amit reference, would “at once envisage” that neodymium magnets may be used as the generic magnets of Amit. As such, Examiner finds that Amit’s disclosure anticipates the use of neodymium magnets, and thus the first combination discloses the limitations of instant claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and Westfall further discloses the port to port adapter being a J1772 to J3400 adapter (para. [0070]). As understood by Examiner, the NACS standard is equivalent with SAE J3400. Westfall generically discloses that the adapter is configurable for a variety of protocols, including both J3400/NACS and J1772 (paras. [0073-0074]). Thus, even if not inherent to Westfall, it would nonetheless be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Westfall such that the adapter functions to convert from J1772 at an input to J3400 at an output for the purposes of utilizing existing chargers with J1772 infrastructure to charge vehicles utilizing J3400 charging ports.
Regarding claim 12, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the mount comprising a cylindrical clamp (inherent to Amit). As seen in FIGS 6A and 6B of Amit, mounts 602 are “cylindrical” in shape as they surround a cable. While not explicitly disclosed as “a clamp,” those of ordinary skill would reasonably interpret the mounts 602 as being “clamped” to the cable, and thus the mounts 602 may be reasonably interpreted as being “cylindrical clamps” as recited by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the mount being cylindrical (see Amit, FIG 6A).
Regarding claim 14, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the lock being connected to a first end of the tether, and the port to port adapted being connected to a second end of the tether (see discussion of Parrett and the associated modification of Westfall as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 15, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the lock being a ring lock (see Parrett FIG 2-3D, wherein clamping assembly 30 forms a ring around the cable 28, and thus may be reasonably interpreted as “a ring lock”).
Regarding claim 16, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 15 and further discloses the ring lock being unitary (see Parrett FIG 3A; as the ring lock 30 is a singular device with a hinge, it may be reasonably interpreted as being “unitary” because it is not formed from two or more discrete elements).
Regarding claim 17, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 15 and further discloses the ring lock having a diameter that is less than a maximum width of the charger head (inherent; the inner diameter of the ring lock is equal to the diameter of the cable, and the cable is inserted within the charger head, meaning that the inner diameter of the ring lock must be less than a maximum width of the charger head).
Regarding claim 18, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the port to port adapter being for connecting to the charger hose (Westfall, FIG 2; adapter 14 is connected to the associated charger hose through the charger head).
Regarding claim 19, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the port to port adapter being for connection to a distal end of the charger head (Westfall, see FIG 2).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the tether comprising a metal wire coated in rubber (inherent to Parrett). As discussed in the rejection of claim 5, a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference without expressly disclosing the recited configuration, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would “at once envisage” the claimed configuration. Parrett unambiguously discloses that “tether 12” is a security wire.
Security wire is frequently understood by those of ordinary skill to be a wire comprised of a metal material and coated in a protective material, such as rubber. See, e.g., U.S. 2008/0045069, paragraph [0028]. As one of ordinary skill would “at once envisage” that the security wire of Parrett was made from a metal coated in a rubber-like covering, Examiner finds that the disclosure of Parrett anticipates the limitations of claims 20 and 21, and that the first combination therefore discloses each and every limitation of claims 20 and 21.
Regarding claim 22, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the electric vehicle charger (see Westfall, FIG 1).
Regarding claims 23-25, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claims 22 and 1, as relevant, and further discloses attaching the port to port adapter to the charger head (Westfall, FIG 2), charging an electric vehicle using the electric vehicle charger (inherent purpose of Westfall’s charging elements), and attaching the first magnetic counterpart to the second magnetic counterpart (Amit, para. [0059]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, taken alone or in reasonable combination with others, fails to disclose the subject matter of instant claim 6. While there is a motivation to attach a first magnetic counterpart to the port to port adapter, Examiner is unable to find any teaching or motivation to provide the first magnetic counterpart within a cavity formed in the port to port adapter. Thus, claim 6 distinguishes over the prior art of record. Claims 7-10 depend from claim 6 and would be allowable for at least the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights