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 § 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.
Claims 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being anticipated by Arakelian (US 2013/0224978 A1).
Regarding claim 17: Arakelian (Figure 6) teaches a method of storing a trailer electrical connector (i.e. 10) comprising: disconnecting a trailer electrical connector (i.e. 10) of a trailer (i.e. 27) from a vehicle electrical connector of a vehicle (i.e. understood from figure 6); and selectively magnetically attaching a magnet (i.e. 18) of the trailer electrical connector to a connector portion (i.e. 24, 26) of the trailer.
Regarding claim 18: Arakelian teaches the method of storing a trailer electrical connector of claim 17, wherein the connector portion is made of metal (i.e. 26 is metal).
Regarding claim 19: Arakelian (Figure 6) teaches the method of storing a trailer electrical connector of claim 17, wherein the connector portion comprises a magnet (i.e. 26 magnetic) having a polarity that is opposite the polarity of the magnet of the trailer electrical connector (i.e. as understood from figure 6).
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.
Claims 1-16 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakelian.
Regarding claim 1: Arakelian (Marked version of figure 3 below) teaches a trailer electrical connector comprising: a housing (i.e. housing of 10) comprising: a front section (i.e. F) defining an electrical interface end (i.e. I) of the housing; a rear section (i.e. R) defining a cord engagement end (i.e. C) of the housing and extending from the front section, and wherein the rear section comprises a tapering portion (i.e. T) that tapers away from the front section toward the cord engagement end; and a receptacle (i.e. receiving 18); a magnet (i.e. 18) within and attached to the receptacle such that the magnet does not move relative to the housing; a plurality of electrical connections (i.e. EC) located at the electrical interface end of the housing; and a cord (i.e. 12) attached to the cord engagement end of the housing,
But does not specifically teach the receptacle formed in an external surface of the tapering portion of the rear section of the housing and wherein the electrical interface end of the housing is smaller than the cord engagement end of the housing.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the parts of Arakelian to have the receptacle formed in an external surface of the tapering portion so as to mount the desired surface of the trailer electrical connector to a trailer. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
PNG
media_image1.png
210
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to alter the shape and size of each of the electrical interface and cord engagement end so as to accommodate the proper cable size and mating receptacle for each section. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 2: Arakelian teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the receptacle and the magnet have a circular cross-sectional shape.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the receptacle and magnet of Arakelian to have a circular cross-sectional shape because a mere change in shape does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 3: Arakelian (Marked version of figure 3 above and figure 5) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the housing further comprises a guide tab (i.e. H) protruding from the external surface of the tapering portion of the rear section of the housing and from an external surface (i.e. 16) of the front section of the housing.
Regarding claim 4: Arakelian (Figure 16) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the electrical interface end is adapted to receive a 7-prong vehicle electrical connector.
Regarding claim 5: Arakelian (Figure 16) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the electrical interface end is adapted to receive one of a 4-prong vehicle electrical connector or a 5-prong vehicle electrical connector.
Regarding claim 6: Arakelian teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein a height of the receptacle, at a location closest to the electrical interface end of the housing, is less than a height of the receptacle, at a location closest to the cord engagement end of the housing,
However, during the rearrangement of parts performed in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to maintain the original height of the rear of the receptacle while it is shifted towards the tapering portion so as to maintain the angle of the magnet which is substantially flush with the wall of the housing. The front height of the receptacle being less than the rear height of the receptacle would be an obvious engineering step flowing from the modification of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7: Arakelian (Marked version of figure 3 above) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the housing further comprises at least two handles (i.e. H) located on opposing sides of the housing.
Regarding claim 8: Arakelian (Marked version of figure 3 above) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 7, wherein the at least two handles protrude perpendicular to a central axis and are parallel to a mounting surface of the magnet.
PNG
media_image2.png
221
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9: Arakelian (New marked version of figure 3 below) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 8, wherein a portion (i.e. P) of each one of the at least two handles overlaps with another portion (i.e. AP) of the corresponding one of the at least two handles along a plane perpendicular to a central axis of the trailer electrical connector.
Regarding claim 10: Arakelian (Figures 2, 4, and 6) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the magnet comprises a mounting surface (i.e. top of 18) that is planar and is proud relative to the receptacle.
Regarding claim 11: Arakelian (Figures 1 and 4) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 1, wherein: the receptacle comprises an outer rim (i.e. edge of receptacle for 18); and the outer rim is substantially flush with an exterior surface of the front section.
Regarding claim 12: Arakelian (Marked version of figure 3 above) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 11, wherein the housing further comprises at least two handles (i.e. H) located on opposing sides of the housing protruding from the tapering rear portion of the housing (i.e. T and H overlap as in the figure above).
Regarding claim 13: Arakelian (Figure 1) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 12, wherein the handles lie within a first plane that is parallel to a planar mounting surface of the magnet.
Regarding claim 14: Arakelian (Figure 1) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the housing further comprises at least one set of ridges (i.e. 16) along the body of the housing.
Regarding claim 15: Arakelian (Figure 1) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the magnet comprises a planar exterior surface flush with the receptacle (i.e. as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 16: Arakelian (See paragraphs [0053] and [0054]) teaches the trailer electrical connector of claim 1, wherein: the magnet is selectively removable from the receptacle; and any one of a plurality of trailer engagement couplings is interchangeable with the magnet and selectively attachable to and within the receptacle.
Regarding claim 20: Arakelian (First marked version of figure 3 above and figure 6) teaches an electrical connector system comprising: a vehicle electrical connector (i.e. connecting to 10 via 12); and a trailer electrical connector (i.e. 10) comprising: a housing (i.e. housing of 10) comprising: a front section (i.e. F) defining an electrical interface end (i.e. I) of the housing; a rear section (i.e. R) defining a cord engagement end (i.e. C) of the housing and extending from the front section, and wherein the rear section comprises a tapering portion (i.e. T) that tapers away from the front section toward the cord engagement end; and a receptacle (i.e. holding 18); a magnet (i.e. 18) within and attached to the receptacle such that the magnet does not move relative to the housing; a plurality of electrical connections (i.e. EC) located at the electrical interface end of the housing; and a cord (i.e. 12) attached to the cord engagement end of the housing.
But does not specifically teach the receptacle formed in an external surface of the tapering portion of the rear section of the housing and wherein the electrical interface end of the housing is smaller than cord engagement end of the housing.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the parts of Arakelian to have the receptacle formed in an external surface of the tapering portion so as to mount the desired surface of the trailer electrical connector to a trailer. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to alter the shape and size of each of the electrical interface and cord engagement end so as to accommodate the proper cable size and mating receptacle for each section. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Mangot whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
/GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
