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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 November 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an abrasive cleaning component in claims 1 and 6 (corresponds to an abrasive surface, various abrasive materials, bristles; see paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 10-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steen, US 9,543,723.
Regarding claim 6, Steen discloses a cleaning tool capable of scouring a terminal of a charging socket of an electric vehicle (100, for cleaning terminals of a trailer light harness, see column 1 lines 21-23, 28-40; MPEP 2115 states: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)), the tool (100) comprising: a plug fitting extending outwardly from a terminal side of a connecting interface to be removably received by the charging socket (portion of 151 that includes 158 as shown in Figure 4; alternatively 150 or 151 when 103 is a connecting interface); further comprising: terminal receiving ports to receive the terminal while inserting the plug fitting into the socket (153, 154, or 158; Figure 4; receives 301 or 302, Figure 5), an abrasive cleaning component provided by an interfacing surface of the terminal receiving ports to contact the terminal (sanding elements 156 or sanding tube 158, column 3 lines 56-67); an operatively connected handle extending outwardly from an operator side of the connecting interface away from the plug fitting (101, Figures 4-5). Regarding claim 10, the terminal receiving ports comprise a stationary terminal receiving port (each of 153, 154, and/or 158 are stationary). Regarding claim 11, the abrasive cleaning component comprises an abrasive surface (sanding elements 156 or sanding tube 158, column 3 lines 56-67). Regarding claim 15, the terminal receiving ports comprise a control pilot receiving port and a proximity pilot receiving port (in that the ports 153 are capable of receiving a control pilot and a proximity pilot, see MPEP 2115, the claims are drawn to a cleaning tool).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dyke et al., US 8,627,534 in view of Snelling, GB 2244641 A and Girolstein, US 2023/0378704.
Regarding claim 1, Van Dyke et al. disclose the claimed invention including a cleaning tool (215) for scouring a terminal of a charging socket of an electric vehicle comprising (Abstract): a plug fitting extending outwardly from a terminal side of a connecting interface to be removably received by the charging socket (plug fitting comprises the unlabeled leftward extending portions of 220 as shown in Figure 2, the connecting interface includes the rightmost portion of 220), further comprising: stationary terminal receiving ports (port regions adjacent 230 that correspond to sockets 210, Figure 2 and column 3 lines 38-43 and 56-61), the terminal is scoured upon moving the terminal receiving ports relative to the terminal (column 2 lines 5-15), and wherein the connecting interface comprises an operator side facing away from the terminal side (Figure 2, rightmost side of 220). Regarding claim 2, the stationary terminal receiving ports (port regions adjacent 230 that correspond to sockets 210, Figure 2 and column 3 lines 38-43 and 56-61) are capable of corresponding to a control pilot terminal and a proximity pilot terminal of the charging socket (the claims are drawn to the cleaning tool that works on a charging socket, the tool of Van Dyke et al. is capable of cleaning a control pilot terminal and a proximity pilot terminal; MPEP 2115 states: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).”).
Van Dyke et al. teach terminal receiving ports for receiving female connectors (Figure 2, female connectors are sockets 210) and recognize that the cleaning tool can also be used for male electrical connectors (column 3 lines 40-43) but fail to disclose that the receiving ports include a rotatable terminal receiving port capable of receiving a DC terminal while inserting the plug fitting into the charging socket. Also, VanDyke et al. does not describe a material for constructing the receiving ports.
Snelling teaches a cleaning tool (12) for scouring or cleaning electrical pins or pin sockets (16 or 17, Figures 1-2), the tool has a male cleaning structure (18, 22) for cleaning a socket (16, Figure 1) and a female cleaning structure (hollow 26 with spring 24, Figure 2) that receives an electrical pin that transmits DC electricity (page 2 lines 21-28). In particular regarding claim 1, Snelling teaches that the female cleaning structure is a rotatable terminal receiving port (Figure 2, the helical spring 24 undergoes rotation, page 1 lines 18-27) and receives a DC terminal pin (17, Figure 2, page 2 lines 21-28), there is an abrasive cleaning component provided by an interfacing surface of the terminal receiving ports to receive the terminal (abrasive surface, page 2 line 30 to page 3 line 2), wherein the terminal is scoured upon moving the terminal receiving port about the terminal (page 4 lines 20-25). Regarding claim 5, the abrasive cleaning component comprises an abrasive surface (surface of 24, page 2 line 30 to page 3 line 2).
Girolstein teach a cleaning tool for cleaning electrical sockets (Abstract, paragraph [0008]) and specifically teaches that it is known to construct the tool from an insulating material such as plastic, so that the tool is electrically insulating to protect a user from electric shocks (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning tool of Van Dyke et al. so that the receiving ports additionally include a rotatable terminal receiving port capable of receiving a DC terminal while inserting the plug fitting into the charging socket, as taught by Snelling, so that the cleaning tool can be used to clean both female and male electrical terminals and by providing a cleaning surface designed for cleaning a DC terminal pin, and further it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the entire tool including the receiving ports from an insulated material, as taught by Girolstein, so that a user is protected from electrical shocks when cleaning.
Claim(s) 6, 10-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dyke et al., US 8,627,534 in view of Thompson et al., US 8,146,241.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Van Dyke et al. disclose the claimed invention including a cleaning tool (215) for scouring a terminal of a charging socket of an electric vehicle comprising (Abstract): a plug fitting extending outwardly from a terminal side of a connecting interface to be removably received by the charging socket (plug fitting comprises the unlabeled leftward extending portions of 220 as shown in Figure 2, the connecting interface includes the rightmost portion of 220), further comprising: stationary terminal receiving ports (port regions adjacent 230 that correspond to sockets 210, Figure 2 and column 3 lines 38-43 and 56-61), the terminal is scoured upon moving the terminal receiving ports relative to the terminal (column 2 lines 5-15), an abrasive cleaning component provided by an interfacing surface of the terminal receiving ports (225, column 4 lines 40-44, abrasive enough to remove dirt, dust, moisture/water), and wherein the connecting interface comprises an operator side facing away from the terminal side (Figure 2, rightmost side of 220). Regarding claim 11, the abrasive cleaning component further comprises an abrasive surface (surface of 225). Regarding claims 12-13, the abrasive cleaning component further comprises bristles (Figures 7 and 9-10), the bristles are angled at and least partially scour the terminal relative to a rotation direction (embodiment of Figure 10). Regarding claim 15, the stationary terminal receiving ports (port regions adjacent 230 that correspond to sockets 210, Figure 2 and column 3 lines 38-43 and 56-61) are capable of corresponding to a control pilot terminal and a proximity pilot terminal of the charging socket (the claims are drawn to the cleaning tool that works on a charging socket, the tool of Van Dyke et al. is capable of cleaning a control pilot terminal and a proximity pilot terminal; MPEP 2115 states: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).”).
Van Dyke et al. fails to disclose an operatively connected handle extending outwardly form an operator side of the connecting interface away from the plug setting.
Thompson et al. teach a tool for working with an electrical connector of a vehicle (100, Title), the tool has a plug fitting extending outwardly from a terminal side of a connecting interface (at 125, Figures 1 and 3-4) and an operatively connected handle extending outwardly from an operator side of the connecting interface away from the plug fitting (105, Figures 1 an 3-4). Regarding claim 16, the operatively connected handle further comprises finger grips (115, Figure 1) so that a user’s hand does not slip during use (column 3 lines 24-28).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connecting interface of the cleaning tool of Van Dyke et al. to operatively connect a handle having finger grips extending outwardly from an operating side away from the plug fitting, as taught by Thompson et al., so that a user can conveniently grasp the cleaning tool in a non-slip manner.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steen, US 9,543,723 in view of Girolstein, US 2023/0378704.
Regarding claim 14, Steen discloses all elements previously recited above, however fails to disclose that the operatively connected handle, the connecting interface, and the plug fitting are constructed using insulated material. Note, the tool of Steen is intended to clean electric terminals of trailer light harnesses (Abstract).
Girolstein teach a cleaning tool for cleaning electrical sockets (Abstract, paragraph [0008]) and specifically teaches that it is known to construct the tool from an insulating material such as plastic, so that the tool is electrically insulating to protect a user from electric shocks (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the entire tool of Steen including the connected handle, the connecting interface, and the plug fitting from an insulated material, as taught by Girolstein, so that a user is protected from electrical shocks when cleaning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 7-9 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: None of the prior art made of record discloses, teaches, or suggests the invention of claims 3-4 and 7-9, specifically wherein a rotatable terminal receiving port passes through the connecting interface to extend outwardly on the terminal side to a terminal end of the rotatable receiving port and to extend outwardly on the operator side to an operator end of the rotatable terminal receiving port; or a rotatable terminal receiving port passes through the connecting interface and extends outwardly from the operator side and the terminal side of the connecting interface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,740,169 to Gordon, US 2025/0057309 to Madnick et al., DE 102023004709 A to Warnke et al. (published May 2025) are each cleaning tools related to charging sockets of an electric vehicle or for electrical terminals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg