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
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 12/29/2025, are accepted and
appreciated by the examiner. Examiner agrees with Applicant that the amended claims do not introduce new matter, with support found in the specification as originally filed, dated 02/16/2022. Claims 1, 3, and 9 have been amended. Drawings 2 and 6 have been amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2025 have been reviewed and fully considered
With regard to objection to Fig. 2 and Fig. 6, Applicant has revises drawings to correct issues of element labels based on inconsistency with specification and has provided appropriate corrected replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). Based on these corrections, Examiner withdraws objections to drawings.
With respect to Claim objection over minor informalities identified in Claim 3, Applicant has amended Claim 3 to clarify language. Examiner withdraws objection of Claim 3.
With regard to rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, over obvious combination of prior art, based on further consideration and search as necessitated by amendments, Examiner finds arguments are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues (Remarks, Pg. 9/11) the obvious combination of BOISEN in view of SHNEIDER as applied to independent claims 1 and 9 in previous office action do not address claim limitations of claims as currently amended. Applicant argues (Pg. 9-10/11) that BOISEN teaches NFC communication. Examiner agrees, but notes BOISEN also teaches wired communication methods, as detailed below. Applicant further argues (Pg. 11/11) that combination of the well-known connection types taught by SCHNEIDER with the diagnostic system/method taught by BOISEN would not result in claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees, based on claim interpretation using plain meaning and broadest reasonable interpretation, and reminds Applicant that specification can only be used to guide interpretation. Examiner notes significant overlap in the technological fields of fuel cell vehicles, often referred to as “fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs)” and “electric vehicles (EVs) battery, with the primary difference being that FCEVs produce electrical energy for motors by on-board chemical reactions involving pressurized hydrogen, as noted in Applicant’s specification in at least [0005]-[0006]. Examiner notes differences, as taught by BOISEN [0027], and features in common between FCEVs and EVs during re-fueling process, including the essential need for communication between vehicle and charging station during fueling process, as noted in Applicant’s specification in at least [0007]. In both cases, IR communication protocols are commonly employed. (See pertinent art below) Examiner further notes that amended claim language which now limits voltage detection to “the first and second pins” of the charge cable prompted further search and evaluation to establish whether or not the claimed invention is distinguishable over prior art available before effective filing date of the claimed invention. Detailed response addressing Applicant arguments, with attention to reasoning and rationale as applied to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in determination that the claimed invention does not distinguish over prior art is presented below with new grounds of rejection as necessitate by amendment.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over BOISEN (US 20200346554 A1) in view of BAHRAMI (“EV Charging Definitions, Modes, Levels, Communication Protocols and Applied Standards”, Technical Report, January 2020.)
With respect to Claims 1 and 9, BOISEN teaches:
A system for diagnosing a charger for a fuel cell vehicle, (BOISEN is in same technical field, [0002]: “fueling and charging systems and, more particularly, to communication systems and methods utilized in connection with fueling hydrogen-powered vehicles or charging of electric vehicles”, directed to fuel cell vehicles, [0005]: “method for communication between a hydrogen fueling station and a hydrogen powered vehicle”, and teaches diagnostics, FIGS. 2A, 2B, and 2C with [0033]: “operational information, including autonomous driving information, route information, diagnostic information, fuel cell health or performance information, or any other suitable or desirable information may also be transferred between vehicle 202 and station 206 via V2X link 250”; Examiner interprets “diagnosing” to be analogous to reference “desirable information …transferred” to mean communication of desired characteristics of either vehicle or charging station. Examiner interprets “fuel cell vehicle” to be analogous to reference “hydrogen powered vehicle”, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.)
a charge cable connector connected to the charger of a fuel charging station; (BOISEN teaches a physical (wired) cable connector to facilitate fueling of a fuel cell vehicle, the combination of wireless and wired protocols, and teaches advantages for use of wired protocol, [0052]: “data communication channel 314 may be safely implemented via an industrial wireless local area network (for example, compatible with IEEE 802.11) or via a physical cable connecting station 306 and vehicle 302…An advantage of using a physical cable is station 306 is directly connected and may thus verify a specific vehicle 302 for fueling…combinations of the mentioned wireless (including infrared, RFID, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other techniques) and wired communication channels may also be used”; BOISEN teaches connection used for communication and/or charging/fueling, FIG. 1 and [0021]: “bidirectional communication between a vehicle 102 having a vehicle safety system 104 and a station 106 having a station safety system 108 for fueling (e.g., gaseous and/or liquid hydrogen fueling) or for charging (e.g., electrical battery charging) as well as for general communication”; BOISEN further teaches physical cable with at least two conductors directed to use with hydrogen fuel cell during charging, [0054]: “station data interface 326 and vehicle data interface 328 may be implemented as a plug and socket electric connection…the cable preferably comprises at least two electric conductors” and “appropriate connection type for a physical cable is robust and easy to connect…to identify it is part of a hydrogen fuel dispenser…may be connected to vehicle 302 with a safe distance established between the cable and nozzle 370 and receptacle 355 of vehicle 302.”)
a detection unit configured to detect a voltage value based on whether charge cable connector is connected to the charger; (BOISEN teaches detection of voltage to confirm connectivity, FIGs. 2A, 2B, and 2C with [0032]: “when nozzle 270 is connected to receptacle 255, unidirectional communication across NFC link 230 from vehicle 202 to station 206 occurs”, and [0058]: “configuration where vehicle data unit 310 is passive, the mere existence of a continuous voltage or a current may be translated to the needed data…verification that data communication channel 314 exists is obtained as long as the voltage or current is present”; Examiner interprets “detect a voltage” to mean generally detection of a voltage as verification of electrical connectivity, as taught by BOISEN. Examiner further notes that “data communication channel” can be wired or wireless, or a combination of the two, as taught above [0052].)
a microcomputer configured to output a control signal for communication control over the charger and diagnose whether at least one of the charge cable connector or an infrared ray (IR) communication unit of the charger has failed, based on the detected voltage value (BOISEN teaches use of computer for control, [0102]: “computer programs, when executed, enable the computer system to perform the features as discussed herein…computer programs represent controllers of the computer system…instructions may also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer or other programmable apparatus to produce a computer-implemented process”, BOISEN teaches controller for communication, [0115]: “computer system may also include a communication interface…allows software and data to be transferred between the computer system and external devices”, BOISEN teaches IR communication protocol, [0050]: “data communication channel 314 may include an infrared (IR) transmitter or receiver, thereby facilitating infrared communication at a data communication interface between station 306 and vehicle 302”; BOISEN teaches communication protocol verified by presence of a voltage, as discussed above; BOISEN teaches use of redundant protocol to alert for failure, FIG. 1 and [0021]: “system 100 employing a two-stage communication hardware methodology and associated software and hardware components…bidirectional communication between a vehicle 102 having a vehicle safety system 104 and a station 106 having a station safety system 108 for fueling…for general communication…between vehicle 102 and station 106 occurs via at least two communication systems…redundancy in the event one of the communication systems fails during fueling or charging”; )
a switch configured to be turned on or off in response to the control signal. (BOISEN teaches control unit with ability to terminate fueling operation, [0034]: “fueling operation may be terminated, for example either automatically via one of station electronic control unit 220 or vehicle electronic control unit 210, or manually by a user at dispenser 263” and [0043]: “NFC link 230 may be configured to transfer specific commands and feedback from dispenser 263 during a fueling operation…bidirectional communication, handshaking, watchdog signals, and/or “black channel” approaches to achieve a desired safely rating”; BOISEN teaches use of switches to control electrical processes including fueling/charging, FIG.3B, [0054]: “station control module 312 may determine a fueling protocol… configuration may be done by adjusting switches, resistors, circuits, capacitors or the like”; Examiner interprets “switch configured to be turned on or off” as any switch in a system that can be turned on or off by some indication from a controller, analogous to a switch as implicitly taught by reference for “fueling operation may be terminated” to indicate an “off” condition, which would be understood by one of ordinary skill to involve a switch of some kind.)
BOISEN does not teach:charge cable connector comprising a first pin for power supply and a second
pin for communication control and configured to be connected to the charger of charging station;
a detection unit configured to detect a voltage value based on whether the first and second pins of the charge cable connector are connected to the charger;
BAHRAMI teaches:
charge cable connector comprising a first pin for power supply and a second
pin for communication control and configured to be connected to the charger of charging station; (BAHRAMI provides a broad and general overview of wide ranging cable and connector types commonly known and used in charging stations, including connections with pins for power supply and communication control. Specifically BAHRAMI teaches integrated connector, Pg. 32, Figure 24, depicting single cable for bidirectional control and communication; BAHRAMI teaches commonly known Type 1 and Type 2 connectors signal (communication) pins and power supply pins in a single plug distinct from charging conductor path, in a single, multi-pin plug, for example, Pg. 36: “signal pins and their function were defined in SAE J1772-2001, is included in IEC 61851-1. All plug types of IEC 62196-2 have the two additional signals: the control pilot (CP in short form) and proximity pilot (PP in short form) in addition to normal charging power pins (L1, L2, L3), neutral (N), and protective earth (PE)” protocol”
a detection unit configured to detect a voltage value based on whether the first and second pins of the charge cable connector are connected to the charger; (BOISEN teaches pin-based connectors, as above, as would be generally known in electrified vehicle technology; BAHRAMI teaches this as a standard protocol, PG. 13, “mechanisms such that, first, power is not supplied unless a vehicle is connected”, where one of the mechanisms for validation of vehicle connection is based on monitoring of a voltage, explained in detail Pg. 40, “Control Pilot (CP) Principle of Operation”, where voltage is monitored for determination of connectivity between a vehicle and a charging station, based on monitoring specific pin voltage “charging station can react by only checking the voltage range present on the CP-PE loop. Note that the diode will only make for a voltage drop in the positive range; any negative voltage on the CP-PE loop will shut off the current as being considered a fatal error (like touching the pins)” , and Pg. 41, Table 19. BAHRAMI teaches broad overview for connectors, for example Figure 45, with pinout, with pins for power (Pins 5, 6) and connection check Pin 7, and communication (Pins 2,4) along with communication.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify BOISEN to include charge cable connector comprising a first pin for power supply and a second pin for communication control and configured to be connected to the charger of charging station and a detection unit configured to detect a voltage value based on whether the first and second pins of the charge cable connector are connected to the charger, such as that of BAHRAMI because it would be understood as a fundamental design choice for implementation in a cable system in a fuel cell charging station to improve efficiency and safety during a charging process. BOISEN points out the advantage of the direct connection made possible by a physical cable, and one of ordinary skill in the art, specifically in the technical field of electrified vehicle technology, would see the obvious advantage of make use of existing cable structures use in electric vehicle charging scenarios to improve the method/system of BAHRAMI and result in the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to implement the well-vetted connection structures and configurations taught by BAHRAMI based on the tested success of those structures into a fuel cell vehicle charging diagnostic system to accomplish the same goals of safety and reliability. The combination would be viewed as a proved way to automate safety monitoring by using pre-determined electrical data on a specified pin to prevent fuel transfer without a secure connection between charging (fueling) station and vehicle, and provide reliable communication between vehicle and charging station. Examiner notes that BOISEN does teach a connection with varied functionality of “conductors, but does not explicitly disclose a pin structure, as disclosed in the overview by BHARAMI and would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art as a proved, highly functional and reliable conductive connection method that would facilitate a wide range of data and electrical signal structure.
With respect to Claim 4, BOISEN in view of BAHRAMI, teaches the limitation of claim 1.
BOISEN further teaches:
the microcomputer is configured to:
diagnose whether at least one of the charge cable connector or the IR communication unit has failed when fuel charging for the fuel cell vehicle is necessary BOISEN teaches use of IR communication protocol, as above, [0050]; BOISEN teaches diagnosis based on communication link, [0045]: “if a communication link fails, either before a fueling operation commences or during the fueling operation, the fueling operation may continue for a period of time, for example based on the static values or previously received dynamic values”) FIG. 1 with [0022]: “employing a two-stage communication hardware methodology and associated software and hardware components…enables bidirectional communication between a vehicle 102 having a vehicle safety system 104 and a station 106 having a station safety system 108 for fueling (e.g., gaseous and/or liquid hydrogen fueling) or for charging (e.g., electrical battery charging)”;
determine that fuel charging is possible when the charge cable connector and the IR communication unit are normal. (BOISEN teaches validation of connection using communication channel, specifically IR protocol, [0051]: “data communication channel 314 may include an infrared (IR) transmitter or receiver…In this way, data exchanged over an infrared link may be used as part of a safe data transmission between station 306 and vehicle 302.”; and teaches communication controlling fueling, [0034]: “dynamic information may include, for example, fueling commands (e.g., start, stop, halt, abort, flow rate increase, flow rate decrease, tank change commands, etc.”)
With respect to Claim 7, BOISEN in view of BAHRAMI, teaches the limitation of claim 1.
BOISEN further teaches:
wherein the microcomputer is configured to diagnose whether the IR communication unit has failed upon fuel charging for the fuel cell vehicle. (BOISEN teaches use of computer, as above, [00105]-[00106], and IR-based communication protocol, [0050], and communication signals to determine connection failure, [0045]: “if a communication link fails, either before a fueling operation commences or during the fueling operation”)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over BOISEN in view of BAHRAMI as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of KIM (US 20150323603 A1).
With respect to Claim 2, BOISEN in view of BAHRAMI, teaches the limitation of claim 1.
BOISEN further teaches:
a voltage distribution circuit; detection unit (BOISEN teaches distribution circuit, FIG. 1, voltage/power unit integrated with fault detection unit)
BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, does not teach:
the detection unit comprises: a first resistor having one side connected in series to a power source; a second resistor having one side connected in series to a ground; and a third resistor having one side connected in series to the second pin,
wherein at least one of the first resistor, the second resistor, or the third resistor forms a voltage distribution circuit.
BAHRAMI further teaches:
resistor having one side connected in series to the second pin (As above, BAHRAMI teaches general pin structure for a wide range of connectors. BAHRAMI teaches use of resistors in connections, Pg. 38, directed to detection of vehicle connection to charging station.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, to include a resistor having one side connected in series to the second pin, as further disclosed by BAHRAMI because such a resistor would be known as a way to control electrical current on an input/output path. Examiner notes interpretation of “pin” to be a connector which would be an input/output path to and from a detection unit. One of ordinary skill would understand, as is taught by BAHRAMI, including resistors with customized values depending on specific application in a cable connected to a detection unit would be an advantage in overall circuit design.
BOISEN, as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, does not teach:
detection unit comprises: a first resistor having one side connected in series to a power source; a second resistor having one side connected in series to a ground;
and a third resistor having one side connected in series to a conductor
wherein at least one of the first resistor, the second resistor, or the third resistor forms a circuit.
KIM teaches:
detection unit comprises: a first resistor having one side connected in series to a power source; (KIM is in same technical field, related detection of faults in an electrical system, and circuit, Abstract: “method and system for detecting faults of a battery heating system and relays…high voltage relay is then detected from a voltage for fault detection which is sensed through a voltage sensing circuit unit for fault detection.”; KIM teaches details for detection circuit, FIG.3, with [0025]: “exemplary circuit configuration for detecting faults”, Examiner points to power source, V_T, connected in series with resistor, element 33.)
a second resistor having one side connected in series to a ground; (KIM teaches resistor connected to ground, Fig. 3, resistor element 34 connected in series to ground, with [0042]: “second resistor 34 connected to the ground terminal”)
and a third resistor having one side connected in series with a conductor, (KIM teaches detection circuit with third resistor connected in series to output conductor, FIG.s 6-7, with [0042]: “voltage sensing circuit unit 32 for fault detection…may include a first resistor 33 and a second resistor 34 both of which are connected in series between the branch circuit 14 and a ground terminal on the branch circuit 14…voltage sensing circuit unit 32 may have a configuration such that a voltage applied to both the terminals of the second resistor 34 may be sensed as the voltage for fault detection.” ; Examiner interpret claim limitation, which uses the term “pin”, as taught above by BAHRAMI, to mean an input/output conductor, as analogous to reference “may be sensed”. )
wherein at least one of the first resistor, the second resistor, or the third resistor forms a voltage circuit. (As above, KIM teaches voltage circuit, with resistors as described for fault detection, FIG.s 6-7.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify BOISEN, as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, to include in a detection unit, a first resistor having one side connected in series to a power source; a second resistor having one side connected in series to a ground; and a third resistor having one side connected in series to a conductor, wherein at least one of the first resistor, the second resistor, or the third resistor forms a circuit, such as that of KIM because it would be a reliable and straightforward construction that would result in a consistent, easily monitored voltage distribution device analogous to a voltage divider. One of ordinary skill would see the advantage of implementing the explicit fault detection circuit configuration disclosed by KIM as an obvious choice for carrying out the method as taught by BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI. One of ordinary skill would appreciate the reliability and history of the fundamental voltage divider technique taught by KIM to provide the detailed circuit structure for the method/system of BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI for sensing and input detection circuits in a wide range of applications including high or low voltage distribution systems.
With respect to Claim 3, BOISEN in view of BAHRAMI, and further in view of KIM, teaches the limitation of claim 2.
BOISEN, as modified by BAHRAMI, teaches pin structure as described above.
Examiner interprets “pin” to mean an electrically conductive input/output path in a circuit, as discussed above.
BOISEN, as modified by BAHRAMI and KIM as taught above, does not teach: the detection unit further comprises a Zener diode having one side connected in
parallel to the microcomputer and the other side connected to the ground, and configured to protect the microcomputer upon battery open in at least one of the first input/output or the second input/output.
KIM further teaches:
detection unit further comprises a Zener diode (KIM teaches use of a Zener diode in fault detection unit, FIG.s 6-7, with [0042]: “voltage sensing circuit unit 32 for fault detection, as shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, may include…a Zener diode 35 connected to both terminals of the second resistor 34 connected to the ground terminal”)
having one side connected in parallel to the microcomputer and the other side connected to the ground, and configured to protect the microcomputer upon detection of battery open condition in at least one of the first input/output or the second conductor or the second input/output (KIM teaches circuit with Zener diode, FIG. 3, element 35, with [0042]; Examiner asserts the function of a Zener diode is generally known and understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, in that a Zener, by design and connected as described would serve as an overvoltage protection for a circuit. One of ordinary skill would understand that “battery open” condition would could cause a significant and/or sudden voltage increase, in which case, the Zener, connected as described by KIM would shunt to ground to protect components in the parallel configuration.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI and KIM as taught above, to include in a detection unit, a Zener diode having one side connected in parallel to the microcomputer and the other side connected to the ground, and configured to protect the microcomputer upon battery open in at least one of the first pin or the second pin, such as that further disclosed by KIM because it would be understood as a trusted, proven, and reliable way to protect undesired electrical damage to a microcomputer or other electronic device. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include the Zener diode overvoltage protection configuration as an obvious choice for a reliable protection against an unexpected open battery condition to avoid damage to the microcomputer.
Claims 5-6, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over BOISEN in view of BHARAMI, as applied to Claims 4, 7, and 9 above, and further in view of TAKASHIMA (US 20130099740 A1).
With respect to Claim 5, BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, teaches the limitations of claim 4.
BOISEN as modified by BHARAMI further teaches:
the microcomputer is configured to: when a voltage value of a power source is not detected before the charge cable connector is connected to the charger, diagnose the first pin as short, (As above, BOISEN teaches use of computer for executing method [00105]-[00106], and monitoring voltage for failure, [0045]; Examiner notes BRI for claim limitation “short” to mean generally an indication of failure; Examiner further notes “first pin” is taught by BAHRAMI as above – see reference as applied to claim 1.)
compare a voltage value, detected by the detection unit, with a reference voltage value stored in a lookup table, and diagnose the second pin as at least one of normal, battery short or ground short based on a result of the comparison. (BOISEN teaches monitoring voltage value at communication port, as above, [0057]; BOISEN teaches use of lookup tables for evaluation of detected voltage, [0106]: “various processing steps…system may employ various integrated circuit components, e.g., memory elements, processing elements, logic elements, look-up tables…which may carry out a variety of functions under the control of one or more microprocessors”; Examiner interprets “normal”, “short”, and “ground short” using plain meaning and broadest reasonable interpretation, to mean generally determination of a non-functional or fault condition, and analogous to reference teaching “monitoring for a fault condition”; Examiner notes BAHRAMI teaches plurality of pins in charging cable as taught above, Claim 1.)
BOISEN, as modified by BHARAMI as taught above, does not teach:
when the voltage value of the power source is detected, turn off the switch by transmitting a low control signal to the switch,
TAKASHIMA teaches:
when the voltage value of the power source is detected, turn off the switch by transmitting a low control signal to the switch, (TAKASHIMA is in related technical field, teaching general electronic circuit related to charging vehicles, [0001]: “present invention relates to an electronic control unit”; TAKASHIMA teaches voltage monitoring and use of low control signal for switching, [0015]: “electronic control unit that is mounted on a vehicle…configured to be charged with an external power supply and that receives a pilot signal via a charging cable…second diagnosis voltage to the pilot signal line in a state where the switching element is maintained in OFF state.”; and [0060]: ”output from the CPU 108 is at a low level. Accordingly, the first switching element 104b of the pilot voltage setting circuit 104 is in OFF state”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, to include when the voltage value of the power source is detected, turn off the switch by transmitting a low control signal to the switch, such as that of TAKASHIMA because it would be understood as a reliable and safe way to control a charging function. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include this reliable circuit technology in combination with the method and system disclosed by BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI because it is a well-known and tested safety protocol based on using a low voltage signal to turn off a switch to prevent potential hazards to personnel and/or equipment. One of ordinary skill would understand the value of using reliable circuit structure as taught by TAKASHIMA in a detection method/system to efficiently improve overall performance.
With respect to Claim 6, BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI and TAKASHIMA, as taught above, teaches the limitations of claim 5.
BOISEN, as modified by BAHRAMI further teaches:
when the first pin and second pin of the charge cable connector are normal and the charge cable connector is connected to the charger; (BOISEN teaches charge cable connector monitoring for fault (or non-fault) condition, as discussed above, [0034], [0043] and [0097], using switches as taught in FIG.3B and [0054]; Examiner notes BHARAMI teaches connectors with plurality of pins, as discussed in detail above.)
microcomputer is configured to: compare a voltage value, detected by the detection unit, with a reference voltage value stored in the lookup table, and diagnose the IR communication unit as at least one of normal, short, or open based on a result of the comparison. (BOISEN teaches, as above, monitoring voltage value at communication port, [0057]; and use of lookup tables for evaluation of detected voltage, [0106]; Examiner notes interpretation as above for “normal”, “short”, and “ground short” to mean generally determination of a non-functional or fault condition, and analogous to reference teaching “monitoring for a fault condition”; Examiner notes BAHRAMI teaches plurality of pins in charging cable as taught above, Claim 1.)
With respect to Claim 8, BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, teaches the limitations of claim 7.
BOISEN further teaches:
wherein upon fuel charging for the fuel cell vehicle, the microcomputer is configured to: turn off or on the switch (BOISEN teaches, as above, computer as controller, and use of switching to control fueling, FIG. 3B, [0055])
compare a voltage value, detected by the detection unit, with a reference voltage value stored in a lookup table, (BOISEN teaches monitoring voltage value at communication port, as above, [0057]; BOISEN teaches use of lookup tables for evaluation involving microprocessor, as above, [0106].)
and diagnose the IR communication unit as at least one of normal, short, or open based on a result of the comparison. (BOISEN teaches, as above, use of IR communication protocols, [0050] and diagnosis of communication data, FIG. 1 with [0021]; and communication protocol verified by presence of a voltage, as above, [0057]; further teaches protocol for determining failure, [0043]: “exemplary fueling protocol may rely on the combined communication links for safety functions, such as custom fueling protocols…may be redundant such that if one communication link fails, there still remains a communication link for sending information between vehicle 202 and station 206”)
BOISEN, as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, does not teach:
turn off or on the switch by transmitting a low control signal or a high control signal to the switch,
TAKASHIMA teaches:
turn off or on the switch by transmitting a low control signal or a high control signal to the switch, (TAKASHIMA teaches switch control using low voltage signal to set switch to OFF, discussed in Claim 5, [0015] and [0060].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, to include the function of turning off or on the switch by transmitting a low control signal or a high control signal to the switch, such as that of TAKASHIMA because it would be understood as well proven, and fundamental design choice to use a reliable electronic evaluation circuit that improves safety and reliability. As above, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to include this reliable electronic circuit configuration for switch control because it would be viewed as a proven way to monitor a system and improve safety by preventing fuel transfer without a secure connection between charging (fueling) station and vehicle.
With respect to Claim 10, BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, teaches the limitations of claim 9.
BOISEN, as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, further teaches:
diagnosing whether the at least one of the charge cable connector or the IR communication unit of the charger has failed, (BOISEN teaches, as above, use of IR communication protocols, [0050], and redundant alerts for determination of failure, FIG. 1 with [0021], and [0050] and [0057]; BOISEN teaches diagnosis based on status of IR communication link, [0045])
the microcomputer is configured to: when a voltage value of a power source is not detected before the charge cable connector is connected to the charger, diagnose the first pin of the charge cable connector as short, (BOISEN teaches use of computer for executing method [00105]-[00106], and monitoring voltage for failure, as above, Claim 5, [0045]; Examiner notes BRI for claim limitation “short” to mean generally an indication of failure; Examiner further notes “first pin” and general structure of connector using pins is taught by BAHRAMI as above – see reference as applied to claim 1.)
compare a voltage value, detected by a detection unit, with a reference voltage value stored in a lookup table, and diagnose the second pin of the charge cable connector as at least one of normal, battery short or ground short based on a result of the comparison. (BOISEN teaches monitoring voltage value at communication port, as above, [0057]; BOISEN teaches use of lookup tables for evaluation of detected voltage, [0106]; Examiner notes interpretation as above for “normal”, “short”, and “ground short” to mean generally determination of a non-functional or fault condition, and analogous to reference teaching “monitoring for a fault condition”; Examiner notes BAHRAMI teaches plurality of pins in charging cable as taught above, Claim 1.)
BOISEN, as modified by BAHRAMI, as taught above does not teach:
when the voltage value of the power source is detected, turn off the switch by transmitting a low control signal to the switch,
TAKASHIMA teaches:
when the voltage value of the power source is detected, turn off the switch by transmitting a low control signal to the switch; (TAKASHIMA teaches low voltage signal for switch control, as above, discussed in Claim 5, [0015] and [0060].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, to include the function of when the voltage value of the power source is detected, turn off the switch by transmitting a low control signal to the switch, such as that of TAKASHIMA because, as previously noted above, it would be understood as well proven, and fundamental design choice to use a reliable electronic evaluation circuit that improves safety and reliability. As above, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to include this reliable electronic circuit configuration for switch control because it would be viewed as a proven way to monitor a system and improve safety by preventing fuel transfer without a secure connection between charging (fueling) station and vehicle.
With respect to Claim 11, BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI and TAKASHIMA, as taught above, teaches the limitations of claim 10
BOISEN, as modified by BAHRAMI further teaches:
diagnosing whether the at least one of the charge cable connector or the IR communication unit of the charger has failed, when the first pin and second pin are normal and the charge cable connector is connected to the charger (BOISEN teaches, as above, use of IR communication protocols, [0050], and redundant alerts for determination of failure, FIG. 1 with [0021], and [0050] and [0057]; BOISEN teaches diagnosis based on status of IR communication link, [0045])
the microcomputer is configured to: compare a voltage value, detected by the detection unit, with a reference voltage value stored in the lookup table, and diagnose the IR communication unit as at least one of normal, short, or open based on a result of the comparison. (BOISEN teaches use of computer for executing method [00105]-[00106], and monitoring voltage for failure, as above, Claim 5, [0045]; BOISEN teaches monitoring voltage value at communication port, as above, see [0057]; BOISEN teaches, as above, use of IR communication protocols, [0050] and diagnosis of communication data, FIG. 1 with [0021]; BOISEN teaches use of lookup tables for evaluation of detected voltage, [0106]; Examiner notes interpretation as above for “normal”, “short”, and “ground short” to mean generally determination of a non-functional or fault condition, and analogous to reference teaching “monitoring for a fault condition”.)
BOISEN, as modified by BAHRAMI and TAKASHIMA as taught above, does not teach:
microcomputer is configured to: turn off the switch by transmitting a low control signal to the switch,
TAKASHIMA teaches:
the microcomputer is configured to: turn off the switch by transmitting a low control signal to the switch, (TAKASHIMA teaches this limitation, as above, discussed in Claim 5, [0015] and [0060].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, to include when the voltage value of the power source is detected, turn off the switch by transmitting a low control signal to the switch, such as that of TAKASHIMA because, as discussed above, it would be understood as a reliable and safe way to control a charging function. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include this reliable circuit technology in combination with the method and system disclosed by BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI because it is a well-known and tested safety protocol based on using a low voltage signal to turn off a switch to prevent potential hazards to personnel and/or equipment. One of ordinary skill would understand the value of using reliable circuit structure as taught by TAKASHIMA in a detection method/system to efficiently improve overall performance.
With respect to Claim 12, BOISEN in view of SCHNEIDER as taught above, teaches the limitations of claim 9.
BOISEN further teaches:
in diagnosing whether the IR communication unit has failed, the microcomputer is configured to: compare a voltage value, detected by a detection unit, with a reference voltage value stored in a lookup table, and diagnose the IR communication unit as at least one of normal, short, or open based on a result of the comparison. (BOISEN teaches, as above, use of IR communication protocols, [0050], and redundant alerts for determination of failure, FIG. 1 with [0021], and [0050] and [0057]; BOISEN teaches diagnosis based on status of IR communication link, [0045]; BOISEN teaches monitoring voltage value at communication port, as above, [0057]; BOISEN teaches use of lookup tables for evaluation of detected voltage, [0106]; Examiner notes interpretation as above for “normal”, “short”, and “ground short” to mean generally determination of a non-functional or fault condition, and analogous to reference teaching “monitoring for a fault condition”;
BOISEN, as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, does not teach:
turn off or on the switch by transmitting a low control signal or a high control signal to the switch,
TAKASHIMA teaches:
turn off or on the switch by transmitting a low control signal or a high control signal to the switch, , (TAKASHIMA teaches switch control using low voltage signal to set switch to OFF, discussed in Claim 5, [0015] and [0060])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify BOISEN as modified by BAHRAMI as taught above, to include the function of turning off or on the switch by transmitting a low control signal or a high control signal to the switch, such as that of TAKASHIMA because, as discussed above, it would be understood as well proven, and fundamental design choice to use a reliable electronic evaluation circuit that improves safety and reliability. As above, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to include this reliable electronic circuit configuration for switch control because it would be viewed as a proven way to monitor a system and improve safety by preventing fuel transfer without a secure connection between charging (fueling) station and vehicle.
Conclusion
Examiner notes particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above are cited for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is included in previous office actions with the addition of the following:
INCIBE (“Secure use of communications and protocols at charging stations, online resource, posted 09/01/2020, accessed 02/27/2026) – provides general overview of connectors, cables and interfacing schemes for electrified vehicles.
JUNG (US 20170314734 A1) – relates generally to a hydrogen filling method for a fuel cell vehicle and, more particularly, to a technology for safely filling a fuel cell vehicle.
YASUYUKI (US 20070298313 A1) – general methods and techniques for refueling fuel cell vehicle
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 TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-9349. 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.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857