DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 12 December 2025. Claims 1-6, 10-16, and 25-30 are pending.
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 12, 26, 27, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (US 2021/0237712) in view of Kinoshita (US 5,504,414), Ernst (EP 1505303), Niwa (JP 2011158170), Srivastava (2020/0180600), Reichard (US 2013/0113452), and Clark (US 2022/0140639).
Regarding claim 1, Fuchs discloses a vehicle charging device (¶3) comprising: a battery (Fig. 1, storage device 14); a communicator (Fig. 1; ¶31); and a controller (Fig. 1; ¶31) configured to: identify a vehicle state based on signals received through the communicator while charging the battery, wherein the vehicle state includes at least one of an identification of a presence or absence of a person within a predetermined reference distance range from a vehicle, an identification of an open or closed state of a window or door of the vehicle, or an identification of a state of charge (SOC) of the battery (¶¶35, 44); and adjust charging based on the identification result indicating presence or absence of the person, the identification of state of the window or the door, or the identification of the state of the battery (¶31).
Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose an inverter electrically connected to the battery, determining a switching frequency based on the identified vehicle state, and adjusting the switching frequency of the inverter such that a voltage supplied to the battery is converted. Kinoshita discloses a vehicle charging device (Fig. 10) comprising: a battery (Fig. 10, battery 1); and an inverter electrically connected to the battery (Fig. 10, inverter 4 connected to battery 1) that converts the voltage supplied to the battery (Abstract). Ernst discloses a controller configured to: identify whether a person is present within a predetermined reference distance range from the vehicle based on signals received through the communicator, determine a switching frequency based on the presence of the person, and adjust a switching frequency of the inverter such that a voltage supplied to the battery is converted based on the identification result indicating presence or absence of the person (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Fuchs, Kinoshita, and Ernst, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of reducing inverter noise during battery charging when people are detected. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Fuchs discloses a vehicle charging system that adjusts operating parameters of charging system components when people are detected within a predetermined reference range. Kinoshita teaches that the charging system components include an inverter that converts the voltage supplied to the battery according to a switching frequency. Ernst teaches that the inverter generates noise, and the switching frequency is adjusted when people are detected within a predetermined reference range. Since Fuchs already teaches reducing noise of charging components when people are detected, and Kinoshita and Ernst teach that a switching inverter is a noisy component whose noise should be reduced by adjusting the switching frequency when people are detected, the teachings of Kinoshita and Ernst are directly applicable to Fuchs in the same way, so that Fuchs would similarly reduce noise when people are detected by adjusting the switching frequency of an inverter of the charging system.
Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to: identify surrounding environment information of the vehicle based on the signals received through the communicator, the surrounding environment information including current time information, current weather information, or vehicle location information; determine a correction value for adjusting the switching frequency based on the identified surrounding environment information, and adjusting the switching frequency of the inverter to be a final switching frequency corresponding to a sum of the determined switching frequency and the determined correction value. Niwa discloses these limitations (p. 3, first and last pars.). Srivastava further discloses determining noise adjustment a correction value for adjusting operating noise setting based on the identified surrounding environment information, and adjusting the operating noise setting to be a final operating noise setting based corresponding to a sum of a determined operating noise frequency and the determined correction value (Fig. 5; ¶56, entire duty curve is offset by an adjustment value to reduce noise based on surrounding environment). If Niwa or Srivastava are found to be unclear regarding a sum of the determined switching frequency and the determined correction value, Reichard discloses the same (¶12).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Fuchs, Kinoshita, Ernst, Niwa, Srivastava, and Reichard, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of reducing noise when it would impact the surrounding environment. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Fuchs discloses a charging system that reduces noise in the presence of people. Niwa and Srivastava teach that noise should further be reduced when it would impact the surrounding environment, and Srivastava further teaches that such reduction involves adjusting existing operating noise parameters up or down based on the surrounding environment. Reichard teaches that such adjustments are performed by summing an existing frequency with an adjustment value. The teachings of Niwa, Srivastava, and Reichard are directly applicable to Fuchs in the same way, so that Fuchs would similarly reduce noise when it would impact the environment, by adjusting an existing operating frequency by adding an adjustment value.
Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose that the controller is further configured to determine the switching frequency of the inverter based on predetermined priority information of the identification of the presence or absence of the person, the identification of the open or closed state of the window or the door, or the identification of the state of charge of the battery. Clark discloses these limitations (¶¶6-7). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Fuchs, Kinoshita, Ernst, Niwa, Srivastava, and Reichard, and Clark, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of controlling noise around people while avoiding critical battery levels. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Fuchs discloses a battery charging system that operates with reduced noise in the presence of people. Clark teaches that the noise reduction in the presence of people should also consider whether the battery is at critical levels. The teachings of Clark are directly applicable to Fuchs in the same way, so that Fuchs would similarly control noise of the battery charging system around people while avoiding critical battery levels.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Fuchs discloses that the controller is configured to identify the presence or absence of the person inside or outside the vehicle based on signals received from a sensor located inside and outside the vehicle through the communicator (¶¶9, 10, 20).
Regarding claim 11, Fuchs discloses a method for charging a vehicle (¶3), the method comprising: identifying a vehicle state based on signals received through a communicator of the vehicle while charging the battery of the vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶31), wherein the vehicle state includes at least one of an indication of presence or absence of a person within a predetermined reference distance range from the vehicle, an identification of an open or closed state of a window or a door of the vehicle, or identification of a state of charge of the battery (¶35); determine and adjust charging based on the identification of a presence of the person, the identification of the state of the window or door, or the identification of the state of the battery (¶31).
Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a switching frequency based on the identified vehicle state and adjusting a switching frequency of an inverter electrically connected to the battery such that a voltage supplied to the battery is converted. Kinoshita discloses an inverter electrically connected to the battery (Fig. 10, inverter 4 connected to battery 1) that converts the voltage supplied to the battery (Abstract). Ernst discloses identifying whether a person is present within a predetermined reference distance range from the vehicle based on signals received through the communicator, determining a switching frequency based on the presence of the person, and adjusting a switching frequency of the inverter such that a voltage supplied to the battery is converted based on the identification result indicating presence or absence of the person within the predetermined reference distance range (Abstract). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to: identify surrounding environment information of the vehicle based on the signals received through the communicator, the surrounding environment information including current time information, current weather information, or vehicle location information; determine a correction value for adjusting the switching frequency based on the identified surrounding environment information, and adjusting the switching frequency of the inverter to be a final switching frequency corresponding to a sum of the determined switching frequency and the determined correction value. Niwa discloses these limitations (p. 3, first and last pars.). Srivastava further discloses determining noise adjustment a correction value for adjusting operating noise setting based on the identified surrounding environment information, and adjusting the operating noise setting to be a final operating noise setting based corresponding to a sum of a determined operating noise frequency and the determined correction value (Fig. 5; ¶56, entire duty curve is offset by an adjustment value to reduce noise based on surrounding environment). If Niwa or Srivastava are found to be unclear regarding a sum of the determined switching frequency and the determined correction value, Reichard discloses the same (¶12). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose that adjusting the switching frequency of the inverter further comprises adjusting the switching frequency based on predetermined priority information of the identification of the presence of the person, of the identification of the state of the window or the door, or of the identification of the state of charge of the battery. Clark discloses these limitations (¶¶6-7). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claims 26 and 29, Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose that the predetermined priority information assigns a highest priority to the identification of the SOC of the battery. Clark discloses these limitations (¶7). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claims 27 and 30, Fuchs discloses assigning a second priority to the identification of the presence or absence of the person outside the vehicle (¶¶6, 10), and a third priority to the identification of the presence or absence of the person inside the vehicle (¶9), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the predetermined priority information assigns a first priority to the identification of the SOC; Clark discloses these limitations (¶7). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Kinoshita, Ernst, Niwa, Srivastava, Reichard, Clark, Takatsu (US 2016/0352139)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to: identify whether a state of charge (SOC) of the battery is less than a predetermined reference SOC; and adjust the switching frequency further based on information indicating that the battery SOC is less than the predetermined reference SOC. Takatsu discloses these limitations (¶39).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Fuchs, Kinoshita, Ernst, Niwa, Srivastava, Reichard, Clark, and Takatsu, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of optimally charging a battery while reducing noise. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Fuchs discloses a battery charging system that adjusts operation to reduce noise in the presence of people, and allows higher power/noise operation to charge the battery more quickly when people are not present (¶17). Kinoshita and Ernst teach that the system operation is adjusted to reduce noise in the presence of people by adjusting inverter switching frequency. Takatsu teaches that when adjusting inverter switching frequency, battery SoC should also be taken into account so that appropriate charging power is used. The teachings of Takatsu are directly applicable to Fuchs, Kinoshita, and Ernst in the same way, so that Fuchs’s system would similarly consider battery SoC when adjusting switching frequency to reduce noise in the presence of people, in order to use appropriate charging power.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose that when the person is not present within the predetermined reference distance range from the vehicle, the controller is configured to reduce the switching frequency based on information indicating that the battery SOC is less than the predetermined reference SOC. However, Fuchs discloses that when the person is not present within the predetermined reference distance range from the vehicle, the controller is configured to allow higher power/noise operation to charge the battery more quickly (¶17). Ernst teaches that the higher power/noise operation means reducing the switching frequency (p. 2, ¶5, “… increase frequency, for example, 2 or 4 kHz to 12 or 15 kHz. This causes a motor generated by a motor noise level can be lowered.”). Takatsu teaches that the higher power/noise operation to charge the battery is performed when the battery SoC is less than the predetermined reference SoC (¶39). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 3.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Kinoshita, Ernst, Niwa, Srivastava, Reichard, Clark, Takatsu, and Kikunaga (JP 2018/082542).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to: identify the open or closed state of the window or the door of the vehicle based on signals received from a sensor that detects whether the window or the door of the vehicle is open or closed through the communicator; and adjust the switching frequency based on the identification of the state of the window or the door of the vehicle. Kikunaga teaches these limitations (¶7). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Fuchs, Kinoshita, Ernst, Niwa, Srivastava, Reichard, Clark, Takatsu, and Kikunaga, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of accounting for open windows/doors when evaluating whether to reduce noise. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Fuchs discloses a charging system that adjusts operation to reduce noise in the presence of a person. Kikunaga teaches that noise reduction is by adjusting switching frequency (as also taught by Kinoshita and Ernst as discussed above with regard to claim 1) in consideration of whether windows/doors are open. The teachings of Kikunaga are directly applicable to Fuchs in the same way, so that Fuchs would similarly detect and further consider whether windows/doors are open when reducing noise, so that noise reduction is used when noise is more likely to be heard.
Regarding claim 6, Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose a memory configured to store a plurality of predetermined switching frequencies, wherein: the plurality of switching frequencies is predetermined based on information about the presence or absence of the person, information indicating that the battery SOC is less than the predetermined reference SOC, and information about whether the window or the door of the vehicle is open or closed; and the controller is configured to determine any one of the switching frequencies stored in the memory to be the switching frequency based on the identification result indicating the presence or absence of the person, the identification result indicating that the battery SOC is less than the predetermined reference SOC, and the identification result indicating whether the window or the door of the vehicle is open or closed.
As discussed above regarding claim 1, the combination of Fuchs, Kinoshita, and Ernst teaches predetermined switching frequencies to reduce noise, based on information about presence or absence of the person. Takatsu teaches a memory configured to store a plurality of predetermined switching frequencies (¶37) based on information indicating that the battery SOC is less than the predetermined reference SOC (¶39), and the controller is configured to determine any one of the switching frequencies stored in the memory to be the switching frequency based on the identification results (¶38), the identification results including an indication that the battery SoC is less than the predetermined reference SoC (¶39). Clark teaches that the noise reduction is based on information about the presence or absence of the person and information indicating that the battery SOC is less than the predetermined reference SOC (¶¶6, 7). Kikunaga teaches that switching frequency is predetermined based on information about whether the window or the door of the vehicle is open or closed, and the controller is configured to determine any one of the switching frequencies based on the identification result indicating whether the window or the door of the vehicle is open or closed (¶7).
The combination of Fuchs, Kinoshita, Ernst, Clark, Takatsu, and Kikunaga suggests controlling the switching frequency of an inverter (as taught by Kinoshita, Ernst, Takatsu, and Kikunaga) based on the presence of people (taught by Fuchs, Ernst, and Clark), the battery SOC (taught by Takatsu and Clark), and whether windows/doors are open/closed (taught by Kikunaga), by determining/selecting a plurality of predetermined switching frequencies (taught by Ernst, Takatsu, and Kikunaga) stored in a memory (taught by Takatsu). In other words, Fuchs discloses noise reduction in the presence of people. As discussed above with regard to claim 1, Kinoshita and Ernst teach that the noise reduction is by adjusting switching frequency. Kikunaga teaches that noise reduction by adjusting switching frequency should also consider whether windows/doors are open/closed, and Clark and Takatsu teach that adjusting switching frequency should also consider battery SOC. Thus, the prior art teaches that adjusting switching frequency during charging to reduce noise should be based on presence of people, battery SOC, and whether windows/doors are open/closed. Ernst, Kikunaga, and Takatsu further teach that adjusting the switching frequency is performed by selecting appropriate predetermined switching frequencies, which Takatsu further teaches are stored in a memory. Thus, the combination of Fuchs, Kinoshita, Ernst, Clark, Takatsu, and Kikunaga clearly teach or suggest the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Fuchs, Kinoshita, Ernst, Niwa, Srivastava, Reichard, Clark, Takatsu, and Kikunaga, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of reducing noise while charging a battery by selecting appropriate switching frequencies based on multiple factors. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Fuchs discloses a charging system that reduces noise in the presence of people, which Kinoshita and Ernst teach would be performed by adjusting switching frequency based on the presence of people. Clark and Takatsu teach that adjusting the switching frequency during charging should further be based on battery SOC, and Kikunaga further teaches that adjusting the switching frequency to reduce noise should further be based on whether windows/doors are open/closed. Ernst, Takatsu, and Kikunaga teach that adjusting the switching frequency is done by selecting appropriate predetermined switching frequencies based on the above criteria, the switching frequencies being stored in a memory. The teachings of Kinoshita, Ernst, Clark, Takatsu, and Kikunaga are directly applicable to Fuchs in the same way, so that Fuchs’s system would similarly select appropriate switching frequencies stored in a memory in order to correctly charge a battery while reducing noise when the noise would be heard/bothersome, such as in the presence of people or when windows/doors are open.
Regarding claim 16, Fuchs discloses that adjusting an operating parameter includes determining any one from operating parameters corresponding to pre-stored conditions to be the operating parameter based on the identification indicating the presence or absence of the person (¶31). Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose adjusting specifically switching frequency; as discussed above with regard to claim 1, Kinoshita and Ernst disclose that further adjusting the switching frequency includes determining any one from among switching frequencies corresponding to pre-stored conditions to be the switching frequency based on the identification result indicating the presence or absence of the person (Ernst, Abstract).
Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose determining any one from switching frequencies corresponding to pre-stored conditions to be the switching frequency based on the identification indicating that the battery SOC is less than the predetermined reference SOC, and the identification indicating whether the window or the door of the vehicle is open or closed. Takatsu discloses determining any one from among switching frequencies corresponding to pre-stored conditions to be the switching frequency based on the identification result indicating that the battery SOC is less than the predetermined reference SOC (¶¶37-39). Clark also discloses controlling noise based on the identification indicating the presence or absence of the person and the identification indicating that the battery SOC is less than the predetermined reference SOC (¶¶6, 7). Kikunaga discloses determining any one from among switching frequencies corresponding to pre-stored conditions to be the switching frequency based on the identification result indicating whether the window or the door of the vehicle is open or closed (¶7). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 6.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Kinoshita, Ernst, Niwa, Srivastava, Reichard, Clark, and Iyer (US 2021/0089109).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Fuchs discloses that the controller is configured to identify whether the person is present within the predetermined reference distance range from the vehicle at intervals of a predetermined time during charging of the battery (¶¶17, 35). If Fuchs is found to be unclear regarding intervals of a predetermined time, Iyer discloses the same (¶42). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Fuchs, Kinoshita, Ernst, Niwa, Srivastava, Reichard, Clark, and Iyer, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of adjusting charger operation as conditions change. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Fuchs discloses a charging system that reduces noise in the presence of people, and increases noise if the people leave. Persons having ordinary skill in the art, reading Fuchs, would understand that in order to detect people entering or leaving the vicinity of the system, Fuchs’s system would repeatedly check for people at predetermined time intervals, as taught by Iyer. The teachings of Iyer are directly applicable to Fuchs in the same way, so that Fuchs’s system would check for people at predetermined time intervals, so that the charging system would just its operation in response to changing conditions.
Claim(s) 25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Kinoshita, Ernst, Niwa, Srivastava, Reichard, Clark, and Osswald (US 2012/0169285).
Regarding claims 25 and 28, Fuchs does not appear to explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to output an alarm when the SOC of the battery is below a predetermined threshold during charging; Osswald discloses these limitations (¶15). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Fuchs, Kinoshita, Ernst, Niwa, Srivastava, Reichard, Clark, and Osswald, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of signaling battery SoC conditions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Fuchs discloses battery charging. Osswald teaches triggering an alarm when battery SoC falls below threshold. The teachings of Osswald are directly applicable to Fuchs in the same way, so that Fuchs would similarly trigger alarms when SoC falls below threshold, to signal battery SoC conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach newly-added limitations, which are addressed above using newly-cited prior art.
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 ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
21 March 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851