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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150 word limit. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9, 19, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraemer et al. US 10256565 B2 in view of AMIT et al. US 20110065305 A1.
In reference to claim 1, Kraemer teaches a charging socket (1; fig. 1) comprising a charging socket body (3), a charging terminal (110), a detachable device (120), and a cable (not shown, but mounted to 120), wherein: the detachable device is electrically connected to a conductor of the cable and is fixedly mounted on the charging socket body, and the charging terminal is provided with a connection structure (111; fig. 3) and is detachably connected to the detachable device by means of the connection structure.
However Kraemer does not teach a flat cable.
AMIT teaches a flat cable (110; fig. 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of AMIT, as taught by AMIT [0059], lines 2-4, in order to allow the cable to more easily bend and fold into a compact space for storage and portability.
In reference to claim 2, Kraemer teaches wherein a front end of the charging socket body is provided with a cavity (i.e. the openings of 301 that receive 120), the detachable device is arranged inside the cavity, and the charging terminal is inserted into an opening of the cavity and is detachably connected to the detachable device by means of the connection structure (see fig. 1).
In reference to claim 3, Kraemer teaches wherein the detachable device further comprises a detachable structure (121, 122; fig. 2, 3) for being detachably connected with the connection structure.
In reference to claim 4, Kraemer substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However Kraemer does not teach the detachable structure is threaded with the connection structure.
Figure 4 of Kraemer teaches the detachable structure is threaded with the connection structure.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Figure 4 of Kraemer as an alternative structure to secure the detachable structure with the connection structure. The detachable structure and connection structure are still able to secure to each other, therefore new results are not produced.
Further Kraemer does not teach at a torque ranging from 0.1 N-m to 30 N-m.
It is known to adjust the size and pitch of the thread to adjust the torque. With a reasonable expectation of success, modifying the thread of the detachable structure and connection structure to arrive at the results of claim 4 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thread of the detachable structure and connection structure to arrive at the results of claim 4. The detachable structure and connection structure are still able to secure to each other, therefore new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 5, Kraemer teaches wherein the detachable structure is a clasp and the connection structure is a slot, or the detachable structure is a slot (i.e. space between 122 and 121; fig. 2, 3) and the connection structure (111; fig. 2, 3) is a clasp.
However Kraemer does not teach the detachable structure is clamped with the connection structure at a connection force ranging from 5 N to 500 N.
It would have been an obvious matter of changing the size of the connection structure, since such a modification would have been a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. It is known that modifying the thickness adjusts the connection force. Therefore, modifying the thickness of the connection structure (111; fig. 2, 3) of Kraemer to arrive at the results of claim 5 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the connection structure to arrive at the results of claim 5. The connection structure still provides a secure connection to the detachable structure, therefore new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 6, Kraemer substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However Kraemer does not teach wherein the detachable structure is clamped with the connection structure at a connection force ranging from 15 N to 300 N.
It would have been an obvious matter of changing the size of the connection structure, since such a modification would have been a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. It is known that modifying the thickness adjusts the connection force. Therefore, modifying the thickness of the connection structure (111; fig. 2, 3) of Kraemer to arrive at the results of claim 6 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the connection structure to arrive at the results of claim 6. The connection structure still provides a secure connection to the detachable structure, therefore new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 7, Kraemer teaches comprising a plurality of detachable devices (120) in a ranges of from 2 to 36 detachable devices.
In reference to claim 8, Kraemer teaches wherein the detachable device comprises a fixed end which is connected to the conductor of the cable by means of welding, crimping , a threaded connection, or being integrally formed (see col. 3, lines 22-26 which mentions the connection region may be a crimping region, welding region, screw region or a region forming other types of connections known to those with ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, col. 3, lines 22-26 read on claim 8).
However Kraemer does not teach of a flat cable.
AMIT teaches a flat cable (110; fig. 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of AMIT, as taught by AMIT [0059], lines 2-4, in order to allow the cable to more easily bend and fold into a compact space for storage and portability.
In reference to claim 9, Kraemer teaches wherein the welding comprises one or more of resistance welding, friction welding, ultrasonic welding, arc welding, laser welding, electron beam welding, and pressure diffusion welding (see col. 3, lines 23-26 which mentions connection region may be a welding region and a region forming other types of connections known to those with ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, col. 3, lines 22-26 read on claim 9).
In reference to claim 19, Kraemer teaches wherein a disassembly portion (111; fig. 3) is provided at the rear end of the charging terminal (110; fig. 2), and the cross sectional shape of the disassembly portion is flat or polygonal.
In reference to claim 37, Kraemer teaches a vehicle (not shown, but mentioned in col. 4, lines 50-53) comprising the charging socket according to any one of claims 1.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraemer in view of AMIT as applied to claim 1, further in view of CN 109672060 A (herein CN060).
In reference to claim 18, Kraemer in view of AMIT substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However Kraemer in view of AMIT does not teach a seal gasket is arranged between the flat cable and the charging socket body.
CN060 teaches a seal gasket (94, 95; fig. 6) is arranged between the cable (15a; fig. 6) and the socket body (see fig. 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of CN060 to modify Kraemer in view of AMIT in order to improve preventing liquids from interfering where the cable is fixed to the terminal.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraemer in view of AMIT as applied to claim 1, further in view of TEZUKA US 20230042010 A1.
In reference to claim 20, Kraemer in view of AMIT substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However Kraemer in view of AMIT does not teach wherein: the charging socket body further comprises a fixed portion which fixedly connects the flat cable to the charging socket body; the charging socket body is provided with a second threaded hole; the fixed portion is provided with a connecting hole and further comprises a screw passing through the connecting hole to be threaded with the second threaded hole; and the fixed portion is fixedly connected to the charging socket body.
TEZUKA teaches of a body (near lead line 16; fig. 7) comprises a fixed portion (17, 20) which fixedly connects the cable (inserted into the body) to the body; the body is provided with a second threaded hole (20; fig. 7); the fixed portion is provided with a connecting hole (pertaining to the opening of 20) and further comprises a screw (pertaining to 17) passing through the connecting hole to be threaded with the second threaded hole; and the fixed portion is fixedly connected to the body. Utilizing the teachings TEZUKA to modify Kraemer in view of AMIT to arrive at the results of claim 20 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of TEZUKA in order to surely secure the cable to the body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12-17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS SLOAN CHAMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30a.m.-5:00p.m..
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/TRAVIS S CHAMBERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831 04/01/2026
Prosecution Insights