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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action has been issued in response to the amendment filed on November 20, 2025.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12 and 14-18 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered. Rejections have been maintained where arguments were not persuasive. Also, new rejections based on the amended claims have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5 and 7-18 are rejected, and this action is made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Amendments to claim 1 overcome the previous 112(b) rejection. Accordingly, the 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues independent claim 1 has been amended and recites elements that are neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, namely, "calculating a relative temperature difference between readings of the first temperature sensor and readings of the second temperature sensors to identify whether the cooling device is functioning or malfunctioning." The cited references do not disclose this step, and the Office Action does not contain any explanations to the contrary.
Newly cited prior art Kusaka (US 2016/0254212) discloses calculating a relative temperature difference between readings of a first temperature sensor (62) (Fig.1) (Par.40, The sensor ascertains the temperature of an element in a power electronics system.) and readings of a second temperature sensor (60) (Par.38-39, The sensor ascertains the temperature in a coolant line.) (Par.53, A difference TS-TW is calculated.). The examiner notes the limitation “to identify whether the cooling device is functioning or malfunctioning” is a recitation of intended use. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the structure/method of Kusaka calculates the claimed temperature difference and is capable of performing the identification of the operation of the cooling device.
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.
Claim 1 recites “means for determining the input power of the charging electronics system and means for determining an output power of the charging electronics system” without reciting sufficient structure for the claimed function. Specification discloses the following regarding the structure - "The means for determining the input power of the charging electronics system 6 and means for determining the output power of the charging electronics system 6 may comprise a commercially available instrument that measures the charging current that flows from the charging device 1 and/or may comprise a commercially available voltage measuring apparatus" (¶ [30] in specification). The above means plus function language in Claim 1 is being interpreted in light of the above disclosure in the specification.
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.
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 1-6, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidinger (USPGPN 20150054462) in view of Kazmirski et al. (US 2021/0063467), Iwabuki et al. (USPGPN 20210313870), Dai et al. (CN 112092658 A) and Kusaka (US 2016/0254212).
Claim 1: Weidinger teaches a method for controlling a charging device (1) (Fig.1, ¶ [1, 12, 14-27] describes control of a charging connection device), having
a first electrical (6) connection for an input-side power supply of the charging device (1) (Fig.1) (Par.1 and 39, first interface for drawing electrical energy from a stationary power supply network),
a second electrical connection (7) for an output-side power supply of a device (electric vehicle) that is to be charged (Figs. [1 & 2]) (Par.1 and 40, second interface for discharging electrical energy to an electric vehicle),
a charging electronics system having a power electronics system (Fig.2 parts 11, 12, 15, 16, 19 etc.) (Par.1 and 41-43, housing of the charging connection device encloses or surrounds a plurality of electrical and electronic components),
at least one first temperature sensor (20) (Fig.2) for ascertaining a temperature adjacent the power electronics system (Par.18 and 44)
the method comprising:
discretely monitoring the at least one first temperature sensor (20) in terms of time to ascertain a rate of change of the temperature of power semiconductors in the power electronics system (Par. 22, 44 and 58, using the temperature sensor 20 (Fig.3) positioned in the region of the circuit board 12 (Fig.2), adjacent to the central control unit 19 (Figs.[2 & 3]), to continuously monitor temperature in terms of time to determine rate of change of temperature and predict the likelihood of the temperature value exceeding a threshold in the future);
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that charging systems, or power systems in general, consisting of power electronic components consume a certain percentage of the input power, known as power loss in the system. The power loss reduces when input power or output power is reduced. Power is the product of corresponding current and voltage at input and output side. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that reducing charging (or output) current is analogous to reducing power loss in the system.
Weidinger teaches using a temperature sensor to monitor temperature inside the enclosure as well as next to specific or sensitive electronic components in the charger. However, it does not specifically teach using at least one first temperature sensor for directly ascertaining a temperature of a barrier layer of power semiconductors in the power electronics system and controlling a power loss of the charging electronics system so that the rate of change of the temperature of the barrier layer is limited sufficiently to permit continued operation of the charging device without a maximum temperature of the barrier layer being exceeded.
Kazmirski teaches using at least one first temperature sensor for directly ascertaining a temperature of a barrier layer (junction) of power semiconductors (power transistors) in the power electronics system and controlling a power loss of the charging electronics system so that the rate of change of the temperature of the barrier layer is limited sufficiently to permit continued operation of the charging device without a maximum temperature of the barrier layer being exceeded (Par.4, 19-20 and 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weidinger to incorporate teachings of Kazmirski to use at least one first temperature sensor for ascertaining a temperature of a barrier layer of power semiconductors in the power electronics system to have had controlled the system based on the temperature to maintain optimum current levels and fully utilize the capacity of the power semiconductor thereby optimizing reliability and performance, as recognized by Karmirski (Par.4 and 19-20).
However, Weidinger does not explicitly teach means for determining input power and output power of the charging electronics system.
Iwabuki teaches means for determining an input power of a charging electronics system (Fig.1) (Par.102) and means for determining an output power of the charging electronics system (Par.100 and 102, output power obtained from the detected DC voltage Vbat of the load 6 and the detected DC current Ibat to the load 6. Means for determining the input or output power by the power detectors as taught by Iwabuki is equivalent to the means for determining input or output power as disclosed by the instant application in ¶ [30] of the specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weidinger in view of Kazmirski to incorporate teachings of Iwabuki to have means for determining input power and output power. One could determine the power loss in the charging electronics system from a difference of the input power and the output power and could employ various methods in order to improve power supply efficiency, as illustrated by Iwabuki (¶ [9, 10, 109, 119, 128, 130]).
However, Weidinger fails to teach using a cooling device that has a coolant feed line and a coolant return line for the purpose of cooling the power electronics system; two second temperature sensors disposed respectively at the coolant feed line and the coolant return line for ascertaining a temperature of a coolant; the method comprising: discretely monitoring, in terms of time, the two second temperature sensors disposed respectively at the coolant feed line and the coolant return line for indirectly ascertaining a rate of change of the temperature of the barrier layer of the power semiconductors in the power electronics system.
Dai teaches two second temperature sensors (42 and 43) disposed respectively at a coolant feed line and a coolant return line for ascertaining a temperature of a coolant (Par.39).
Dai teaches using a cooling device that has a coolant feed line and a coolant return line for the purpose of cooling a power electronics system (charging circuit) (Par.37); discretely monitoring, in terms of time, the two second temperature sensors (42 and 43) disposed respectively at the coolant feed line and the coolant return line for indirectly ascertaining a rate of change of the temperature of a power electronics system (Par.39, outlet temperature measurement module 43 is used to accurately detect the temperature of the coolant flowing through the corresponding coolant outlet end. Par.10 and 12, coolant circulation subsystem provides a closed circulation of coolant through electrical circuits and the switch area in the charging pile; lower temperature coolant enters the subsystem through the inlet, absorbs heat dissipated by the electronics system, and then a high temperature coolant flows out of the cooling system through the coolant outlet. Temperature of the coolant at the outlet provides an indirect measure of the temperature of the electronics system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weidinger in view of Kazmirski and Iwabuki to incorporate teachings of Dai to use temperature sensors to obtain temperature of a coolant in the cooling system. Doing so would enable one to use temperatures of the coolant at the inlet end and the outlet end and use the difference of the two temperatures to control flow of coolant in a way that reduces energy consumption. That would enable one to achieve efficient energy utilization of the entire system while meeting the heat dissipation effect of the charging station, as taught by Dai (Par.39-42); Dai’s description describes using the coolant temperature to determine the need to decrease/increase powered cooling of the coolant and decrease/increase the flow rate of the coolant, so having this information can not only improve the efficiency of this process, but also more reliably cool the device being cooled by the coolant, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand).
The combination of Weidinger in view of Kazmirski and Dai does not explicitly teach calculating a relative temperature difference between readings of the first temperature sensor and readings of the second temperature sensors to identify whether the cooling device is functioning or malfunctioning.
Kusaka teaches calculating a relative temperature difference between readings of a first temperature sensor (62) (Fig.1) (Par.40, The sensor ascertains the temperature of an element in a power electronics system.) and readings of a second temperature sensor (60) (Par.38-39, The sensor ascertains the temperature in a coolant line.) (Par.53, A difference TS-TW is calculated.). The examiner notes the limitation “to identify whether the cooling device is functioning or malfunctioning” is a recitation of intended use. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the structure/method of Kusaka calculates the claimed temperature difference and is capable of performing the identification of the operation of the cooling device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had calculated a relative temperature difference between the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensors of the combination to have had reduced the probability of a heat generating element in the power electronics system being damaged by thermal stresses (Par.10 and 13) by taking appropriate action if the difference exceeds a threshold (Par.53).
Claim 2: The combination of Weidinger, Kazmirski, Iwabuki, Dai and Kusaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Weidinger does not explicitly teach determining the power loss of the charging electronics system from a difference between the output power of the charging electronics system and the input power of the charging electronics system.
Iwabuki teaches determining the power loss of the charging electronics system (Fig.1) from a difference between the output power of the charging electronics system and the input power of the charging electronics system (Par.100-102, the control circuit 50 may calculate the power loss Ps by comparing the total input power with the output power).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weidinger to incorporate the teachings of Iwabuki to have had accurately detected a power loss of the system to perform effective power loss reduction control (Par.92 and 130).
Claim 3: The combination of Weidinger, Kazmirski, Iwabuki, Dai and Kusaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Weidinger does not explicitly teach using the charging electronics system having the power electronics system to control the output power via an output-side charging current and an output-side charging voltage; and limiting or reducing the output-side charging voltage and/or the output-side charging current to limit or reduce the output power.
Kazmirski teaches using the charging electronics system having the power electronics system to control the output power via an output-side charging current and an output-side charging voltage; and limiting or reducing the output-side charging voltage and/or the output-side charging current to limit or reduce the output power (Abstract) (Par.3, control electronics 14 (Fig. 1), power loss is reduced by reducing current and/or voltage in the output circuit. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that reducing output current and/or voltage would reduce output power, since [Power]=[Current] x [Voltage]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weidinger to incorporate the teachings of Kazmirski to have had reduced power loss of the system (Par.3) thereby improving overall performance.
Claim 5: The combination of Weidinger, Kazmirski, Iwabuki, Dai and Kusaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Weidinger does not explicitly teach providing the at least one first temperature sensor at an element of the power electronics system for directly measuring the temperature of the power electronics system and thereby ascertaining the temperature of the barrier layer of the power semiconductors in the power electronics system.
Kazmirski teaches providing the at least one first temperature sensor at an element of the power electronics system for directly measuring the temperature of the power electronics system and thereby ascertaining the temperature of the barrier layer of the power semiconductors in the power electronics system (temperature sensor 24 located in the immediate vicinity of power semiconductor switch 12 arranged on heat sink 26 (Fig.1, ¶ [9]); Par.11-12, it teaches a method to use various electrical operating parameters that affect junction layer (i.e., barrier layer) temperature to obtain barrier layer temperature of the power semiconductor switch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weidinger to incorporate teachings of Kazmirski to use at least one first temperature sensor for directly ascertaining a temperature of a barrier layer of power semiconductors in the power electronics system. Doing so would enable one to obtain the junction (i.e., barrier layer) temperature of a power semiconductor device and, thus, operate the power semiconductor more optimally (i.e., not having to operate it sub-optimally in a temperature range of a few Kelvin below its maximum junction temperature) while ensuring its protection from thermal overload, as recognized by Kazmirski (Par.4-5).
Claim 12: The combination of Weidinger, Kazmirski, Iwabuki, Dai and Kusaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Weidinger teaches further comprising reducing a charging current at the output-side power supply without shutting down the charging device (1) when readings of the first temperature sensor (20) reach a first limit value (21) (Par.46).
Clam 15: The combination of Weidinger, Kazmirski, Iwabuki, Dai and Kusaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Weidinger teaches wherein controlling the power loss of the charging electronics system is performed without shutting down the charging device (1) (Par.59, teaches reducing the charging current, i.e., output current of the charging device, in a preemptive manner if trend analysis predicts that temperature is likely to exceed a threshold in immediate future.). Reducing charging (or output) current is analogous to reducing power loss in the system.
Claim 16: The combination of Weidinger, Kazmirski, Iwabuki, Dai and Kusaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Weidinger does not explicitly teach wherein the means for determining the input power of the charging electronics system and the means for determining an output power of the charging electronics system each comprise an instrument for measuring current flow from the charging device.
Iwabuki teaches the means for determining the input power of the charging electronics system (Fig.1) and the means for determining an output power of the charging electronics system each comprise an instrument for measuring current flow from a charging device (Par.100; The output power is obtained from detected output voltage and current. Given that power is voltage times current. The input power detector requires a detected input current to obtain the input power.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Iwabuki in the system of Weidinger to have had accurately measured an input and output power amount (Par.100) to control the operation of the system according to the measured power amounts to efficiently reduced a power loss of the system (Par.97).
Claims 7-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidinger (USPGPN 20150054462) in view of Kazmirski et al. (US 2021/0063467), Iwabuki et al. (USPGPN 20210313870), Dai et al. (CN 112092658 A) and Kusaka (US 2016/0254212) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stephen et al. (GB 2579690 A).
Claims 7-8 and 18: The combination of Weidinger, Kazmirski, Iwabuki, Dai and Kusaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Weidinger does not teach using a characteristic map for controlling the power loss of the charging electronics system on the basis of measurement values; wherein the characteristic map comprises data of at least one of the following variables: output current of the charging electronics system, output voltage of the charging electronics system, output power of the charging electronics system, input current of the charging electronics system, input voltage of the charging electronics system, input power of the charging electronics system, power loss of the charging electronics system, temperature of the coolant, temperature of the coolant at the coolant feed line, temperature of the coolant at the coolant return line, temperature of a barrier layer, temperature of a heat sink, at least one limit value or limit values for at least one such variable from temperature, voltage, current, power, and for a maximum permissible rate of change, in particular for one operating state or for various operating states; wherein the characteristic map comprises data of the following variables: output current of the charging electronics system, output voltage of the charging electronics system, output power of the charging electronics system, input current of the charging electronics system, input voltage of the charging electronics system, input power of the charging electronics system, power loss of the charging electronics system, the temperature of the coolant, and the temperature of the barrier layer.
Stephen teaches using a characteristic map for controlling the power loss of the charging electronics system on the basis of measurement values (page 3 line 33 - page 4, line 2; page 4 lines 15-22; Fig.1: controller 103 is configured to control the charging current based on the temperature signal according to a stored relationship in the form of a lookup table providing current values as a function of temperature);
wherein the characteristic map comprises data of at least one of the following variables: output current of the charging electronics system (page 3 line 33 - page 4, line 2; stored relationship in the form of a lookup table providing current values as a function of temperature).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that charging systems, or power systems in general, consisting of power electronic components consume a certain percentage of the input power, known as power loss in the system. The power loss reduces when input power or output power is reduced. Power is the product of corresponding current and voltage at input and output side. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that reducing charging (or output) current is analogous to reducing power loss in the system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weidinger in view of Kazmirski, Iwabuki and Dai to incorporate teachings of Stephen to have had controlled the system utilizing a stored relationship of set values (Page 4, Lines 1-2 and 20-22) thereby achieving a faster controlling operation.
Claims 9, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidinger (USPGPN 20150054462) in view of Kazmirski et al. (US 2021/0063467), Iwabuki et al. (USPGPN 20210313870), Dai et al. (CN 112092658 A) and Kusaka (US 2016/0254212) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Becker (USPGPN 20160009191).
Claims 9 and 11: The combination of Weidinger, Kazmirski, Iwabuki, Dai and Kusaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Weidinger does not teach using a temperature controller that is superordinate to current and voltage controllers as a limit value controller.
Becker teaches using a temperature controller that is superordinate to current and voltage controllers as a limit value controller (see Abstract, teaches a method of operation for a charging station where temperature in the charging station is monitored, and when a limit temperature is exceeded, a new charging power is negotiated. ¶ [17], the control is carried out in such a manner that, depending on the temperature or temperature gradient, a new charging current is negotiated, so that exceeding the maximum temperature is avoided. Since both the current and power (both of which are then known) are negotiated/limited based upon the temperature, thus power and current control are subordinate to temperature control, and voltage control is inherently subordinate to temperature control due to the relationship between the three, i.e., Power = [Voltage] x [Current]);
the temperature controller is a PID controller (Par.17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weidinger in view of Kazmirski, Iwabuki and Dai to incorporate teachings of Becker in order to achieve an effective temperature control that would shorten charging time while protecting the electrical components of the charging station from thermal damage (¶ [7, 14]).
Claim 10: The combination of Weidinger, Kazmirski, Iwabuki, Dai and Becker teach the limitations of claim 9 as disclosed above. Weidinger discloses a controller taking into account rate of change of the temperatures by the at least one first temperature sensor (20) (¶ [58-59] continuously monitor temperature in terms of time to determine rate of change of temperature (trend analysis)).
Weidinger does not explicitly teach the controller takes into account a range of temperatures by the two second temperature sensors.
Dai teaches a controller (41) taking into account rate of change of temperatures by the two second temperature sensors (42 and 43) (Par.39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weidinger in view of Kazmirski and Iwabuki to incorporate teachings of Dai to take into account temperature sensors to obtain temperature of a coolant in a cooling system. Doing so would enable one to use temperatures of the coolant at the inlet end and the outlet end and use the difference of the two temperatures to control flow of coolant in a way that reduces energy consumption. That would enable one to achieve efficient energy utilization of the entire system while meeting the heat dissipation effect of the charging station, as taught by (Par.39-42).
The combination of Weidinger, Kazmirski, Iwabuki, Dai does not explicitly teach the temperature controller takes into account maximum occurring rates of change of temperatures and thus where necessary takes into account stipulated limit values for the at least one rate of change.
Becker teaches a temperature controller takes into account maximum occurring rates of change of temperatures and thus where necessary takes into account stipulated limit values for the at least one rate of change (Par.17, the control is carried out in such a manner that, depending on the temperature or temperature gradient, a new charging current is negotiated, so that exceeding the maximum temperature is avoided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weidinger in view of Kazmirski, Iwabuki and Dai to incorporate teachings of Becker in order to achieve an effective temperature control that would protect the electrical components of the charging station from thermal damage (¶ [7, 14]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidinger (USPGPN 20150054462) in view of Kazmirski et al. (US 2021/0063467), Iwabuki et al. (USPGPN 20210313870), Dai et al. (CN 112092658 A) and Kusaka (US 2016/0254212) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Epstein et al. (US 2017/0297431).
Claim 14: The combination of Weidinger, Kazmirski, Iwabuki, Dai and Kusaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. The combination of Weidinger in view of Kazmirski and Dai does not explicitly teach further comprising shutting down the charging device when readings of the second temperature sensors are equal.
Epstein teaches shutting down the charging device when readings of the second temperature sensors are equal (Par.38; When the rate cannot be increased.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Epstein in the combination to have had prevented the temperature from becoming too high when the coolant cannot be increased (Par.38).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidinger (USPGPN 20150054462) in view of Kazmirski et al. (US 2021/0063467), Iwabuki et al. (USPGPN 20210313870), Dai et al. (CN 112092658 A) and Kusaka (US 2016/0254212) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ley et al. (2011/0246105).
Claim 17: The combination of Weidinger, Kazmirski, Iwabuki, Dai and Kusaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. The combination of Weidinger in view of Kazmirski and Dai does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one first temperature sensor is arranged at either a circuit breaker or a cooling element of the power electronics system.
Ley teaches a temperature sensor (16) (Fig.1) arranged at a cooling element (17) of a power electronics system (10) (Par.17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the placed the temperature sensor on a cooling element in the combination to have had provided temperature reading to help maintain an acceptable temperature for electronics within the power electronics system (Par.17) as taught in Ley.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13objected 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: The closest prior art fails to teach alone or in combination “reducing a charging current without shutting down a charging device when readings of one of the second temperature sensors reach a second limit value” as disclosed in claim 13.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached on 571-270-7166. 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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859