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 .
Final Office Action
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
(a) Claim date: 09/03/25 (amendment).
(b) Priority date: 12/13/19.
(c) Comment: Deficient disclosure and non-identifiable novelty.
Applicant’s argument and Examiner’s Response
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; however, some/all are NOT found to be persuasive because of the following reasons:
Applicant:
In the Office Action, claims 1-5, 8-13 have been rejected under 112(a) and (b) as having unclear limitation.
In view of the foregoing and the claims amendments, the Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 112 rejections with respect to the claims.
The Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
(a) Unclear limitation "charging columns":
The Applicant respectfully submits that the purpose of the charging columns according to the claimed subject matter is to be installed in public areas (compare page 4 line 6-8 of the application). In urban and public areas, these charging poles are usually installed on sidewalks next to parking spaces located along streets or in parking complexes in urban environments.
For example, a google search for "definition charging column".
provides power from a grid connection to the vehicle's battery. These robust structures house the electrical components for safe and efficient power transfer, are often located in public spaces or commercial areas, and are built to withstand harsh environmental conditions, weather, and mechanical
impact.
Furthermore, all of the links mentioned and all of the images shown depict a uniform image of a charging column, so there is no doubt as to what is meant by the term "charging column".
Examiner:
Examiner carefully reviewed applicants’ argument, including the support from Google. However, please note that the disclosure needs to be distinctly interpreted by ordinary skilled person in the art at the time of this invention. The examiner looks into the synonym of chagrin statin (link below). Out of 161 possible meaning, none came as a “charging column”.
https://www.powerthesaurus.org/charging_station/synonyms
In addition, when looked up in Wikipedia, for the terminology “Charging column”, the following was found.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
1170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner considering the Google reference to be a far-fetch, and one of the many possible weak references. As well known, Google tires to help user with any and every search words, either within reasonable or unreasonable scope. Meaning, examiner still does not consider that “charging column” is a reasonable representation for the “charging statin”. In contrast, Wikipedia helps with information that is withing a reasonable scope. Please note that Wikipedia reference cited above did not find any meaning for “charging column”.
From a careful investigation inside the specification, it is observed that that applicant disclosure often suggesting that the charging column could possibly be back-up power module. Wherein, a backup power module generally resides next to a commercial building having diesel genset or fuel-cell system, to help during a power outage.
To further assist the applicant, let the examiner provide an exemplary clearer discloser: “An EV charging stating comprising a charging column, wherein, the charging column is a column-like structure mounted on a solid ground and holding all necessary electrical and mechanical component for the EV charging station;”.
In summary, after a careful study, the applicant’s disclosure both in specification and the drawing is found to be less than sufficient for ordinary skilled in the art at the time of this invention to be enabled without undue experiment, or to help distinctly interpret the claim limitation “charging column”. A clearer disclosure is therefore considered to be necessary. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter, which the applicant regards as his invention.
Following claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
MPEP 2173.02: Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322. For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.
This is because each of the limitation mentioned can have multiple possible interpretations that are unique, unrelated and different from each other; making it impossible to adequately capture the intended claimed subject matter [MPEP 2173.02].
Claims listed below recite certain claim limitations (at least the independent claims), that is/are not clearly pointing out claim subject matter, and therefore rejected.
35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Based on the examiner’s analysis (described below), the applicant failed to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains without any undue experiments. Therefore, the listed claims are further rejected.
Rejected claims: 1-3, 5, 8-13.
(a) Unclear limitation: Claim 1, limitation “charging column (1)” is unclear.
Applicant’s pertinent disclosures:
PNG
media_image2.png
586
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
/00
PNG
media_image3.png
260
832
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s analysis:
First, the terminology “charging column (1)” is NOT well-known or commonly-utilized in the pertinent art. Second, the applicant disclosure did NOT define or describe the terminology enough, in a manner, so that one in ordinary skilled in the art could distinctly interpret these limitations at the time of this invention.
For example, some commonly known relevant terminologies are: charging station, charging system, charging port, and etc. As shown above the applicant disclosure (the diagram or the description), one in an ordinary skilled in the art would not know what a “charging column is”. The applicant seems to has used specific figure number inside the claim; wherein, the figure refers to boxes without any description on it. The specification is written in a way so that no one can actually understand enough to distinctly interpret the claim limitations.
Additional explanation is given in the “Applicant’s argument and Examiner’s Response” section above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:A person shall be entitled to a patent unless:(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.Claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the prior art of record BRONOLD (WO 2010128066 A2)
(As to claim 1, BRONOLD discloses):
1. (Original) A charging column (1) for charging electric vehicles, which has [Page 3, “electric vehicles are vehicles that are wholly or partially powered by electrical energy”; note: the limitation “charging column” is interpreted as charging system or mechanism residing inside an electric vehicle]:
a housing (2) [Page 6, “a housing”]
a first device for energy conversion (3) [Page 3, “a fuel cell for energy conversion”]
a control unit [Para. 4, “first control unit”]
a tank (6) for fuel [Para. 6, “a tank for liquid or gaseous energy carriers”],
wherein the first device for energy conversion (3),
the tank (6), and the control unit (5) are arranged in the housing (2) [Fig. 2, all the modules of a hybrid vehicle reside withing a housing, which is encompassed by the body of the hybrid vehicle)],
wherein, the first device for energy conversion is a fuel cell and/or combustion engine. (2) [Page. 3, “Electric vehicles with fuel cells generally consist of a fuel cell for energy conversion, a tank for liquid or gaseous energy carriers, an electrochemical energy storage and an electric machine for the drive.”].
(As to claim 2, BRONOLD discloses):
2. (Original) The charging column (1) for charging electric vehicles according to claim 1,
characterized in that the first device for energy conversion (3) is suitable for converting a fuel into electrical and/or kinetic energy [Page 3, “for liquid or gaseous energy carriers, an electrochemical energy storage and an electric machine for the drive”, note: drive refers to an indication of kinetic energy that has been originated from the liquid (the gasoline)].
(As to claim 3, BRONOLD discloses):
3. (Currently Amended) The charging column (1) for charging electric vehicles according to claim 1, characterized in that
the fuel is methanol, ethanol, biogas, or hydrogen [Para. 3, “liquid or gaseous energy”; note: the liquid energy as disclosed by the reference is well known to encompasses all the claim limitations, including “methanol, ethanol, biogas, or hydrogen”].
(As to claim 5, BRONOLD discloses):
5. (Currently Amended) The charging column (1) for charging electric vehicles according claim 1,
characterized in that a second device for energy conversion (4) is arranged in the housing (2) wherein the second device for energy conversion (4) is a generator (8) [Page, 9: “converted into electrical energy by means of a generator and fed into the energy storage system”].
(As to claim 8, BRONOLD discloses):
8. (Currently Amended) The charging column (1) for charging electric vehicles according to claim 1, characterized in that the charging column (1) has an electrical energy store (9) [Para. 11, “battery cells”],
wherein the electrical energy store (9) is connected such that it is suitable for starting a device for conveying the liquid energy carrier (11) to the first device for energy conversion (3) [Para. 9, “converted into electrical energy by means of a generator and fed into the energy storage system”].
(As to claim 9, BRONOLD discloses):
9. (Currently Amended) The charging column (1) for charging electric vehicles according to claim 1, characterized in that
the charging column (1) is suitable for generating current without feeding in energy from outside [Page, 14, “can be selectively separated from the rest of the entire system current”].
(As to claim 10, BRONOLD discloses):
10. (Currently Amended) The charging column (1) for charging electric vehicles according to claim 1, characterized in that the charging column (1) has exclusively one or more electrical connections which are suitable for charging electric vehicles [Page 4, “plug-in hybrids that can be charged via a stationary power outlet”].
(As to claim 11, BRONOLD discloses):
11. (Currently Amended) The charging column (1) for charging electric vehicles according to claim 1, characterized in that the charging column (1) has exclusively lines and/or connections which are suitable for conducting electrical energy out of the charging column Page 4, “plug-in hybrids that can be charged via a stationary power outlet”.
(As to claim 12, BRONOLD discloses):
12. (Currently Amended) The charging column (1) for charging electric vehicles according to claim 1, characterized in that
the tank (6) holds at least 100 L of fuel, preferably 200 L, and particularly preferably 500 L [Page, 3, “a tank for liquid or gaseous energy carriers”; note: 100L to 500L is a reasonable range for vehicle’s tank size, especially for a larger vehicle].
(As to claim 13, BRONOLD discloses):
13. (Currently Amended) The charging column (1) for charging electric vehicles according to claim 1, characterized in that the tank (6) has a volume for receiving an amount of a fuel with an energy of at least 125 kWh, preferably 440 kWh, and particularly preferably 2000 kWh [Page 4, “(electric vehicles currently required by electrical energy storage peak power in the range between 10 kW and 200 kW”; note: applicant required energy range is 125kWh to all the way 2000kWh. The reference discloses vehicle with power range 10kW to 200kW. Now, if the vehicle were to run 10 hours, it would require an energy of 100 kWh to 200kWh, which covers the entire range of the applicant].
Conclusion
If any prior art made of record in the form PTO-892 and not relied upon, then those arts should simply be considered as pertinent, to the applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The time for reply to a final rejection is as follows (MPEP paragraphs: 7.39, 7.40, 7.40.01, 7.40.02.fti, 7.40.02.aia, 7.41, 7.41.03, 7.42.03.fti, 7.42.031.fti, or 7.42.09):
A shortened statutory period will expire at 3 months from the date of the final rejection or on the date the advisory action is mailed, whichever is later. Thus, a variable reply period will be established. If the last day of "2 months of the date of the final Office action" falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday within the District of Columbia, and a reply is filed on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.7(a), the reply is deemed to have been filed within the 2 months period and the shortened statutory period will expire at 3 months from the date of the final rejection or on the mailing date of the advisory action, whichever is later (see MPEP § 710.05). In no event can the statutory period for reply expire later than 6 months from the mailing date of the final rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED ALAM at telephone number is (571) 270-1507, fax number is (571) 270-2507 and email address:mohammed.alam@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM to 4PM (EST), Monday to Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, JACK CHIANG can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohammed Alam/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights