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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 332b, as shown in figures 7A and 10A, 302-7 and 302-11, as shown in figure 10A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in figure 5B, the numeral “32a” should read –32A--. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is longer than 150 words. 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 Objections
Claims 1-21 objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1 line 15, the phrase “flow the coolant” should read –conduct the coolant--. Claims 2-21 include all the limitations of claim 1 and are objected to for the same reasons. In claim 4 line 1, the phrase “of 2” should read –of claim 2--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. (CN113451838A).
With regard to claim 1, He teaches, as shown in figures 1-8 and taught on page 7 line 43 – page 8 line 42: “A connector part for a charging system for charging an electric vehicle, the connector part (shown in figure 8) comprising: a plug-in portion 400 for plugging connection to a mating connector part; at least one electric plug contact 100 disposed on the plug-in portion 400 and configured to transmit a charging current; at least one busbar 111 electrically connected to the at least one plug contact 100, the at least one busbar 111 being connectable to a load conductor 112 and having a face portion (inner faces of 111 in figure 2) extending flat along a plane; and a cooling unit 210 having a housing 212 disposed on the face portion and being configured to conduct a coolant flow (taught on page 7 line 43 – page 8 line 17), the housing 212 being open at a side facing the face portion, an electrically insulating separating layer 2131 being disposed between the housing 212 and face portion, the face portion being disposed on a first side of the separating layer 2131 so as to flow the coolant flow on a second side of the separating layer 2131”.
With regard to claim 20, He teaches: “The connector part of claim 1”, as shown above.
He also teaches, as shown in figures 1-8 and taught on page 2 lines 2-3: “wherein the at least one electrical plug contact 100 and the at least one busbar 111 comprises two busbars 111, each busbar 111 of the two busbars 111 having a face portion and being connected to one plug contact 100 of the two plug contacts 100, and wherein the cooling unit 210 is disposed between the face portions of the two busbars 111”.
With regard to claim 21, He teaches: “…the connector part of claim 1”
He also teaches, as shown in figures 1-8 and taught on page 2 lines 2-3: “A charging system for charging an electric vehicle”.
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.
Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN113451838A) and Sarraf et al. (10,756,498).
With regard to claim 2, He teaches: “The connector part of claim 1”, as shown above.
He does not teach: “wherein the separating layer comprises a plastic film”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date, Sarraf teaches, as shown in figure 5 and taught in column 7 lines 28-60: “wherein the separating layer 308 comprises a plastic film”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He in order to electrically isolate the terminal from the heat exchanger (Sarraf, column 7 lines 28-60).
With regard to claim 3, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 2”, as shown above.
Sarraf also teaches, as shown in figure 5 and taught in column 7 lines 28-60: “wherein the plastic film comprises a material containing polymide”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He as modified by Sarraf in order to electrically isolate the terminal from the heat exchanger (Sarraf, column 7 lines 28-60).
With regard to claim 4, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of 2”, as shown above.
Neither He nor Sarraf specifically teach: “wherein the plastic film has a thickness equal to or less than 0.1mm. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the thickness of the plastic film to be equal to or less than 0.1 mm in order to save material. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regard to claim 5, He teaches: “The connector part of claim 1”, as shown above.
He does not specifically teach: “wherein the separating layer comprises a thermally conductive element comprising a material different from the material of the housing”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date, Sarraf teaches, as shown in figure 5 and taught in column 7 lines 28-60: “wherein the separating layer 308 comprises a thermally conductive element comprising a material different from the material of the housing 306”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He in order to electrically isolate the terminal from the heat exchanger (Sarraf, column 7 lines 28-60).
With regard to claim 6, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 5”, as shown above.
Sarraf also teaches, as shown in figure 5 and taught in column 7 lines 28-60: “wherein the thermally conductive element comprises a material comprising silicone rubber (column 7 lines 28-60 teach the thermally conductive element can be boron nitride silicone, which is a silicone rubber)”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He as modified by Sarraf in order to electrically isolate the terminal from the heat exchanger (Sarraf, column 7 lines 28-60).
With regard to claim 7, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 5”, as shown above.
Neither He nor Sarraf specifically teach: “wherein the thermally conductive element has a thickness equal to or less than 1 mm”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the thermally conductive element to be 1mm or less in thickness in order to provide a better electrical isolation. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regard to claim 8, He teaches: “The connector part of claim 1”, as shown above.
He does not teach: “wherein the cooling unit comprises a seal disposed between the housing and the separating layer”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Sarraf teaches, as shown in figures 8-9: “wherein the cooling unit 300 comprises a seal 358 disposed between the housing and the separating layer 308”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He in order prevent leakage of the coolant (Sarraf, column 8 lines 37-47).
With regard to claim 9, He teaches: “The connector part of claim 1”, as shown above.
He does not teach: “wherein the cooling unit comprises a chamber array arranged in the housing and configured to conduct the coolant flow, the chamber array including a plurality of chambers in fluid communication with one another, at least some of the chambers of the plurality of chambers being configured to guide the coolant flow along a flow direction perpendicular to the plane”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Sarraf teaches, as shown in figures 5-7: “wherein the cooling unit 300 comprises a chamber array 316, 318, 350 arranged in the housing 310 and configured to conduct the coolant flow, the chamber array including a plurality of chambers in fluid communication with one another, at least some 318 and 316 of the chambers of the plurality of chambers being configured to guide the coolant flow along a flow direction (upward and downward in figure 6) perpendicular to the plane (running in the plane perpendicular to the up-down direction through the interface between 114 and 310 in figure 6)”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He in order to flow coolant through the cooling unit (Sarraf, column 8 lines 18-36).
With regard to claim 10, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 9”, as shown above.
Sarraf also teaches, as shown in figures 5-7 and taught in column 8 lines 18-36: “wherein the chamber array is configured to guide the coolant flow in a meandering manner in the flow direction toward the face portion and away from the face portion against the flow direction”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He as modified by Sarraf in order to flow coolant through the cooling unit (Sarraf, column 8 lines 18-36).
With regard to claim 11, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 9”, as shown above.
Sarraf also teaches, as shown in figures 5-7 and taught in column 8 lines 18-36: “wherein a first chamber 316 of the plurality of chambers is configured to guide the coolant flow in the flow direction toward the face portion (portion of 114 running along the bottom of 310 in figure 6)”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He as modified by Sarraf in order to flow coolant through the cooling unit (Sarraf, column 8 lines 18-36).
With regard to claim 12, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 11”, as shown above.
Sarraf also teaches, as shown in figures 5-7 and taught in column 8 lines 18-36: “wherein the first chamber 316 is adjoined by a first approach flow channel (portion of 350 extending from 316 in figure 7) configured to guide the coolant flow from the first chamber 316 in the flow direction toward the face portion, the first approach flow channel having a reduced flow cross section (measured roughly top-to-bottom in figure 7) compared to a flow cross section (diameter of opening of 316 in figure 7) of the first chamber 316”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He as modified by Sarraf in order to flow coolant through the cooling unit (Sarraf, column 8 lines 18-36).
With regard to claim 13, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 11”, as shown above.
Sarraf also teaches, as shown in figures 5-7 and taught in column 8 lines 18-36: “wherein a second chamber 318 of the plurality of chambers in fluid communication with the first chamber 316 is configured to guide the coolant flow away from the face portion against the flow direction”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He as modified by Sarraf in order to flow coolant through the cooling unit (Sarraf, column 8 lines 18-36).
With regard to claim 14, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 13”, as shown above.
Sarraf also teaches, as shown in figures 5-7 and taught in column 8 lines 18-36: “wherein the second chamber 318 is adjoined by a second approach flow channel (portion of 350 extending from 318 in figure 7) configured to guide the coolant flow from the second chamber 318 against the flow direction, the second approach flow channel having a reduced flow cross section (measured roughly top-to-bottom in figure 7) compared to a flow cross section of the second chamber (diameter of the opening of 318 in figure 7)”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He as modified by Sarraf in order to flow coolant through the cooling unit (Sarraf, column 8 lines 18-36).
With regard to claim 15, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 13”, as shown above.
Sarraf also teaches, as shown in figures 5-7 and taught in column 8 lines 18-36: “wherein a third chamber (middle portion of 350 in figure 7) of the plurality of chambers in fluid communication with the second chamber 318 is configured to guide the coolant flow in the flow direction toward the face portion”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He as modified by Sarraf in order to flow coolant through the cooling unit (Sarraf, column 8 lines 18-36).
With regard to claim 16, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 9”, as shown above.
Sarraf also teaches, as shown in figures 5-7 and taught in column 8 lines 18-36: “wherein the plane is defined by a longitudinal direction (roughly left-right direction in figure 6) and a vertical direction (upper-left to lower-right in figure 6) and extends perpendicular to a transverse direction (top-to-bottom direction in figure 6), at least some of the chambers of the plurality of chambers being offset from one another along the longitudinal direction and/or along the vertical direction and/or along the transverse direction”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sarraf with the invention of He as modified by Sarraf in order to flow coolant through the cooling unit (Sarraf, column 8 lines 18-36).
With regard to claim 17, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 16”, as shown above.
Neither He nor Sarraf teach: “wherein a first array of chambers of the plurality of chambers is arranged in distributed relation along a first height plate which is perpendicular to the vertical direction, and a second array of chambers of the plurality of chambers is arranged in distributed relation along a second heigh plane perpendicular to the vertical direction and spaced apart from the first height plane”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate and rearrange the chambers so a first array of chambers of the plurality of chambers is arranged in distributed relation along a first height plate which is perpendicular to the vertical direction, and a second array of chambers of the plurality of chambers is arranged in distributed relation along a second heigh plane perpendicular to the vertical direction and spaced apart from the first height plane in order allow the absorption and dissipation of heat by chambers positioned in different areas. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With regard to claim 18, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 17”, as shown above.
Neither He nor Sarraf teach: “wherein the first array of chambers has a first port configured to introduce coolant flow, and the second array of chambers has a second port configured to discharge the coolant flow”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the first and second ports so the first and second arrays each have a port to introduce coolant flow and a port to discharge the coolant flow in order to be able to flow coolant through both arrays of chambers. Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With regard to claim 19, He as modified by Sarraf teaches: “The connector part of claim 18”, as shown above.
Neither He nor Sarraf teach: “wherein the first port and the second port are each connectable to a coolant hose”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first and second ports connectable to a coolant hose in order to be able to flow coolant through the second array of chambers. Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
