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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract is less than 50 words.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26, line 7, “a means for retaining” should say “the means for retaining”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 12-13, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamaru (US 20150191093 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yamamaru discloses a support (housing 61, port cover 64, support bracket 14, figs.1-12B) for a hinge of an opening leaf (lid 63, hood 12, figs.1-12) of an electric or hybrid motor (electric vehicle 1, fig.1) vehicle that can be recharged via a charging socket (charging port unit 6 with charging port 62, fig.5), comprising: means for retaining the charging socket with respect to the support (charging port 62 is are bolted to support wall 14e, paragraph [0051], figs.1-12).
Regarding claim 13, Yamamaru discloses wherein the opening leaf is a hood of the motor vehicle (lid 63, hood 12, figs.1-12).
Regarding claim 16, Yamamaru discloses wherein the means for retaining the charging socket comprises orifices (charging ports 62a, 62b inserted through hole formed in wall 14e and is bolted to wall 14e, figs.1-12, paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 20, Yamamaru discloses wherein the support is obtained from a sheet by at least bending and/or stamping (bracket 14 is bent, figs.1-12).
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) 14-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamaru (US 20150191093 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20150239359 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Yamamaru discloses the support of claim 12 and means for positioning the charging socket with respect to the support (openings 68a, openings in wall 14e through which the stud bolts of charging ports 62a and 62b extend as seen in figures 5-6). Yamamaru fails to disclose means for centering the support.
However, Sasaki discloses means for centering the support (stud bolts 26 center the support 20, figs.1-3) that is configured to cooperate with a template for positioning the support; and means for positioning the charging socket with respect to the support (insertion holes 33 and study bolts 25 and opening 24, figs.1-3).
Yamamaru and Sasaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of supports for charging ports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamamaru with the means for centering the support of Sasaki with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of securely mounting the support.
Regarding claim 15, Yamamaru in combination with Sasaki discloses wherein the means for positioning the charging socket with respect to the support comprises a circular hole and an oblong hole (openings 68a, fig.5).
Regarding claims 17-18, Yamamaru discloses charging ports (62a, 62b) are bolted to port wall (14e). Yamamaru fails to directly disclose orifices and nuts.
However, Sasaki discloses stud bolt (25, fig.1) and nut (40, fig.1) fastening support (20) and charging port (30). Also, welding is a well-known technique to secure items.
Yamamaru and Sasaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of supports for charging ports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamamaru with the fasteners of Sasaki with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of securely fastening two items together.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamaru (US 20150191093 A1) in view of Toth (US 20150224887 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Yamamaru discloses the support of claim 12, but fails to disclose the support is substantially U-shaped.
However, Toth discloses wherein a support is substantially U- shaped, the U comprising a first leg and a second leg (holder 50 has U-shapes formed by upper legs and lower legs, figs.4a-b).
Yamamaru and Toth are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of supports for charging sockets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamamaru with the support structure of Toth with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of saving material, weight, and supporting the charging socket.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamaru (US 20150191093 A1) in view of Nakanishi (US 20200101854 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Yamamaru disclose the support of claim 20, but fails to disclose wherein the sheet is a steel sheet.
However, Nakanishi discloses a sheet is a steel sheet (support member 32 is made from sheet metal, paragraph [0060], fig.2).
Yamamaru and Nakanishi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of supports for charging sockets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamamaru with the sheet metal support of Nakanishi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results as sheet metal is a well-known material used in automotive support brackets because it is strong, cheap, and easy to work with.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-28 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.
Claim 22 depends upon claim 19 which is rejected, but claim 22 has the limitation of “an arrangement comprising: a cowl-side reinforcement; and the support as claimed in claim 19, wherein the support is fastened on the cowl-side reinforcement, and the support extends substantially in a vertical and longitudinal plane, the first leg extending downward and being arranged at a front and the second leg extending downward and being arranged at a rear.” The primary reference of Yamamaru discloses the support of claim 1, but failed to disclose the support being substantially U-shaped as discussed in claim 19. Toth disclosed a substantially U-shaped support as seen above in claim 19. The support of Yamamaru is disclosed near the front end of a vehicle (1b), not near where a cowl-side reinforcement member would be disposed. It would be unreasonable to move the entire charging port unit (6) adjacent a cowl-side reinforcement member and then to have the modified support mounted to the cowl-side reinforcement member. The prior art either alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 22. For the reasons above claim 22 has allowable subject matter.
Claims 23-28 depend upon claim 22 giving them the same allowable subject matter as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights