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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6, 11-16, 21-22, and 24-29 are pending. Claims 7-8, 19-20, and 23 are canceled. Claims 9-10 and 17-18 are previously canceled. Claims 1, 5-6, 11, 16, and 21 are amended. Claims 22 and 24 are previously presented. Claims 2-4 and 12-15 are original. Claims 25-29 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to arguments regarding claim 1 that it was agreed the proposed amendments overcome the cited prior art, it is submitted that primary reference BECH discloses an insulation layer and the current sensor arranged with respect to the insulation layer as described in the rejection. It is further submitted that Applicant did not specifically comment on or argue against the disclosure of BECH relied upon in the rejection. In the interview held in August 2025, the Examiner failed to recognize the disclosure of BECH of insulation parts 154 and 148, which are interpreted as reading on the recited “insulation layer”. Regarding the amended recitations “a charger-side controller is configured to receive a first measured current from the current sensor, a first measured voltage from the voltage sensor, and a second measured current and a second measured voltage from a vehicle-side controller”, the rejection includes a clarified explanation of how the prior art combination discloses the claimed recitations. In particular, applying the functionality disclosed in ELLIOTT of arc fault detection utilizing multiple current and voltage sensors in the charger-side controller of BECH as modified by ONO teaches the amended recitations. It is therefore maintained that BECH as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system for an electric vehicle as described in the rejection of claim 1 below.
In response to arguments regarding claim 11 that it was agreed the proposed amendments overcome the cited prior art, it is submitted that the amended recitation “a current sensor arranged …between the first conductor and the second conductor”, while not explicitly disclosed in primary reference GASE, would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art as described in the rejection. Regarding the amended recitations “a vehicle-side controller is configured to receive a first measured current from the current sensor, a first measured voltage from the voltage sensor, and a second measured current and a second measured voltage from a charger-side controller”, the rejection includes a clarified explanation of how the prior art combination discloses the claimed recitations, similar to the rejection of claim 1. It is therefore maintained that GASE as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system for an electric vehicle as described in the rejection of claim 11 below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “charging connector including…a voltage sensor” as recited in claim 1; and “the voltage sensor is arranged in the housing” as recited in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite the current sensor is a “point field detector”, which appears to be drawn to the embodiment of Figure 8 of the current sensor 186 located between the power conductors 182 and 184 (see paragraphs 0035-0036 of the specification as originally filed). Claim 1 appears to be drawn to the embodiment of Figure 9 of the current sensor 198 arranged on outer insulation layer 197 (see paragraphs 0037-0038 of the specification as originally filed). It is not clear how the two embodiments can be combined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 21, 24, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BECH (US PG Pub 2021/0387537; cited in previous office action) in view of ONO (US PG Pub 2020/0189415; cited in previous office action) and ELLIOTT (US PG Pub 2020/0028349; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 1, BECH discloses a charging system for an electric vehicle (102, Fig. 1; ¶ 0004, 0017), comprising:
a charger connector (120, Figs. 1, 2, 4, & 5) configured to connect to a charge port on the electric vehicle (110, Fig. 1; ¶ 0017) and including:
a housing (124, Figs. 2, 4, & 5; ¶ 0020, 0028);
a first conductor passing through the housing (138/150, Fig. 5; ¶ 0029);
a second conductor passing through the housing (e.g., one of 162, 140/156, or 136/142/144, Figs. 4 & 5; ¶ 0029);
an insulation layer (comprising at least one of 148 or 154, Figs. 4 & 5) arranged in the housing and surrounding both the first conductor and the second conductor (¶ 0029: First DC electrode 138 includes an insulated part 148 embedded in housing 124′… first DC electrode 140 includes an insulated part 154 embedded in housing 124′);
a current sensor (122, Figs. 2, 4, & 5; ¶ 0017, 0030-0031) arranged in the housing on an exterior side of the insulation layer relative to the first conductor and the second conductor (as shown in Figures 4 & 5, current sensor 122 is located on an exterior side of insulation layer 148/154), the current sensor configured to sense current flowing through at least one of the first conductor and the second conductor (¶ 0020-0021: the sensor is a light sensor, wherein said light sensor detects an electrical arc, which is indicative of current flowing) to a battery system of the electric vehicle (400, Fig. 1; ¶ 0020); and
a charger-side controller (112, Fig. 2) is configured to receive a first measured current from the current sensor (¶ 0021: Sensor 122 can output a signal in response to the detection of light to controller 112), the charger-side controller including an arc fault detection module configured to detect a DC arc fault (¶ 0017, 0029, 0042: DC power) in response to a first measured current from the current sensor and to stop charging the electric vehicle in response to detecting the DC arc fault (¶ 0021, 0027, 0031-0032).
BECH fails to disclose a voltage sensor configured to sense voltage across the first conductor and the second conductor.
ONO discloses a voltage sensor (234, Fig. 3) configured to sense voltage across the first conductor and the second conductor (¶ 0043, 0047), and the charger-side controller is configured to receive a first measured voltage from the voltage sensor (¶ 0047: Voltage sensor 234 detects a voltage between power lines L1 and L2 on the side close to connector 280 relative to relay circuit 220 and outputs a value of the detection to controller 270). Providing the voltage sensor of ONO in the charger connector of BECH does not change the functionality or provide new or unexpected results, and would be an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of the voltage sensor being in the charger connector (see ¶ 0028 of the specification as originally filed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the voltage sensor in order to ensure safe and optimal charging by detecting potential issues, e.g., overvoltage, undervoltage, or fluctuations.
BECH as modified by ONO fails to disclose the charger-side controller is configured to receive a second measured current and a second measured voltage from a vehicle-side controller; and detecting a DC arc fault by comparing the first measured current from the current sensor and the first measured voltage from the voltage sensor to the second measured current and the second measured voltage, respectively.
ELLIOTT discloses detecting a DC arc fault by comparing the first measured current from the current sensor and the first measured voltage from the voltage sensor to the second measured current and the second measured voltage, respectively (¶ 0031: measure the voltage at at least two locations in each power distribution system 30 to determine the voltage drop between the at least two locations. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, the first and second voltage sensors 52, 54 can sense or measure the respective voltages at the output 56 of the SSPC 34 and the input 58 of the electrical load 20. In another non-limiting example, the sensed or measured voltages from the first and second voltage sensors 52, 54 can be supplied, provided, delivered, or communicated to the controller module 46, which can be adapted or configured to determine the voltage drop between the respective locations. Detection of a voltage drop exceeding a value, threshold, range, or the like can imply an arc fault 42 condition, such as the series arc fault 44; ¶ 0051: the positioning of first and second current sensors 252, 254 at the respective SSPC output 56 and electrical load input 58 can be utilized to determine when or if an arc fault 242 is or has occurred, such as a parallel arc fault 244). It would be obvious to apply the technique of detecting a DC arc fault as disclosed in ELLIOTT to the system of BECH as modified by ONO, e.g., such that the charger-side controller 112 of BECH is configured to receive a second measured current and a second measured voltage from, e.g., a vehicle-side controller. It is noted that the “vehicle-side controller” is not recited as part of the charging system of claim 1, and as such the references are not relied upon to teach the “vehicle-side controller”, but rather are relied upon to teach the functionality of the “charger-side controller” as recited.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include detecting a DC arc fault by comparing voltage and current measurements as recited in order to detect different arc faults, such as parallel or series arc faults (ELLIOTT, ¶ 0031, 0051).
Regarding claim 3, BECH discloses the current sensor comprises a point field detector (PFD) (¶ 0017, 0030-0031: the current sensor is a light sensor, which can be considered a “point field detector” within the broadest reasonable interpretation, as light is an electromagnetic field, and the light is detected at a specific point in space, i.e., at the connector 120).
Regarding claim 5, BECH as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1 and BECH further discloses when stopping charging, the charger-side controller is configured to: decrease current output to the electric vehicle to zero (¶ 0021, 0027, 0031-0032).
BECH as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT fails to teach the charger-side controller is configured to send a message to the vehicle-side controller to cause the vehicle-side controller to open a first contactor and a second contactor connecting the first conductor and the second conductor to the battery system after the current sensed by the current sensor is less than a predetermined current threshold.
ONO further discloses the charger-side controller is configured to send a message to the vehicle-side controller to cause the vehicle-side controller to open a first contactor and a second contactor connecting the first conductor and the second conductor to the battery system after the current sensed by the current sensor is less than a predetermined current threshold (¶ 0043, 0081, 0100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the charger-side controller configured to send a message as recited in order to prevent overcharging and/or prevent damage to the battery.
Regarding claim 6, BECH as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system as applied to claim 5 but fails to teach the voltage sensor is arranged in the housing.
However, it is noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of the voltage sensor being arranged in the housing (see ¶ 0028 of the specification as originally filed). Providing the voltage sensor in the housing would not change the functionality of the voltage sensor, and would not provide new or unexpected results, and constitutes an obvious rearrangement of parts. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize the voltage sensors of ELLIOTT are placed in locations where arc fault detection is desired. BECH discloses sensing arc faults in the charger connector housing, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place a voltage sensor as disclosed in ELLIOTT in the charger connector housing of BECH for the purpose of detecting arc faults at or adjacent to the charger connector housing.
Regarding claim 21, BECH as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system as applied to claim 3 but fails to teach the voltage sensor is arranged in the housing.
However, it is noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of the voltage sensor being arranged in the housing (see ¶ 0028 of the specification as originally filed). Providing the voltage sensor in the housing would not change the functionality of the voltage sensor, and would not provide new or unexpected results, and constitutes an obvious rearrangement of parts. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize the voltage sensors of ELLIOTT are placed in locations where arc fault detection is desired. BECH discloses sensing arc faults in the charger connector housing, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place a voltage sensor as disclosed in ELLIOTT in the charger connector housing of BECH for the purpose of detecting arc faults at or adjacent to the charger connector housing.
Regarding claim 24, BECH as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1 but fails to teach the voltage sensor is arranged in the housing.
However, it is noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of the voltage sensor being arranged in the housing (see ¶ 0028 of the specification as originally filed). Providing the voltage sensor in the housing would not change the functionality of the voltage sensor, and would not provide new or unexpected results, and constitutes an obvious rearrangement of parts. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize the voltage sensors of ELLIOTT are placed in locations where arc fault detection is desired. BECH discloses sensing arc faults in the charger connector housing, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place a voltage sensor as disclosed in ELLIOTT in the charger connector housing of BECH for the purpose of detecting arc faults at or adjacent to the charger connector housing.
Regarding claim 29, BECH discloses the current sensor is integrated with the insulation layer (e.g., current sensor 122 is integrated along with insulation layer 148/154 in the housing 124’ as shown in Figs. 4 & 5).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BECH in view of ONO and ELLIOTT as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6, 21, 24, and 29 above, and further in view of FRIEDRICH (US 2022/0224136; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 2, BECH as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1 but fails to disclose the current sensor has a bandwidth greater than 100KHz.
FRIEDRICH discloses a current sensor having a bandwidth of 100Khz, and discloses the bandwidth is a result effective variable (¶ 0010). It is submitted that providing the bandwidth greater than 100Khz would be an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the current sensor having bandwidth greater than 100KHz in order to measure faster changes in the current signal.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BECH in view of ONO and ELLIOTT as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6, 21, 24, and 29 above, and further in view of TOMIMBANG (US 2009/0154033; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 4, BECH as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system as applied to claim 3 but fails to disclose the current sensor is selected from a group consisting an anisotropic magneto-resistive (AMR) sensor, a giant magneto-resistive (GMR) sensor, a tunnel magneto-resistive (TMR) sensor, and a Hall effect sensor.
TOMIMBANG discloses the current sensor is a Hall effect sensor (abstract, ¶ 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the current sensor as a Hall effect sensor in order to utilize the known characteristics of Hall effect sensors.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 15-16, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GASE (DE 102014217851A1; cited in previous office action; English machine translation included with previous office action) in view of ONO (US PG Pub 2020/0189415; cited in previous office action) and further in view of ELLIOTT (US PG Pub 2020/0028349; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 11, GASE discloses a charging system for an electric vehicle (¶ 0007, 0027-0028), comprising:
a charge port (T2, Fig. 1) on the electric vehicle (¶ 0001; ¶ 0025: electric vehicle (not shown) has a high-voltage electrical system 1) configured to connect to a charger connector (T1, Fig. 1; ¶ 0026-0027);
a first conductor (TS1, Fig. 3) configured to connect power from the charge port to a first terminal of a battery system (B, Fig. 1; ¶ 0038-0039);
a second conductor (TS2, Fig. 3) configured to connect power from the charge port to a second terminal of the battery system (B, Fig. 1; ¶ 0038-0039);
a current sensor (device for measuring a physical quantity MV, Figs. 1 & 3; ¶ 0026) arranged in the charge port (¶ 0036: the device for measuring a physical quantity MV is located in the plug-in device T2), the current sensor configured to sense current flowing through at least one of the first conductor and the second conductor to the battery system (¶ 0009, 0032: the current sensor is a light sensor, e.g., a photodiode or a light-sensitive resistor, wherein said light sensor detects an electrical arc, which is indicative of current flowing); and
a vehicle-side controller (C, Fig. 1) is configured to receive a first measured current from the current sensor (¶ 0036: the device for measuring a physical quantity MV is located in the plug-in device T2, it is connected to the control device C via a measuring line.
However, the control device C can also be located very far away, so that the measurement may be affected due to the length of the measuring line. In such cases, it is useful if the device for measuring a physical quantity MV has a small controller that sends the measurement data to the control device C via a bus present in the vehicle), the vehicle-side controller including an arc fault detection module configured to detect a DC arc fault (¶ 0038: the conductors TS1 and TS2 are DC contacts) in response to the first measured current from the current sensor and to cause charging to stop in response to detecting the DC arc fault (¶ 0035-0039).
GASE fails to disclose the current sensor is arranged between the first conductor and the second conductor.
However, placing the current sensor of GASE between the first conductor and the second conductor would not change the functionality of the current sensor, and would not provide new or unexpected results, and therefore constitutes an obvious rearrangement of parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the current sensor arranged between the first conductor and the second conductor in order to minimize errors due to the positioning of the current sensor and/or in order to allow for a compact design in the charge port.
GASE fails to disclose a voltage sensor configured to sense voltage across the first conductor and the second conductor.
ONO discloses a voltage sensor (234, Fig. 3) configured to sense voltage across the first conductor and the second conductor (¶ 0043; ¶ 0047: Voltage sensor 234 detects a voltage between power lines L1 and L2 on the side close to connector 280).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the voltage sensor in order to ensure safe and optimal charging by detecting potential issues, e.g., overvoltage, undervoltage, or fluctuations.
GASE as modified by ONO fails to disclose a vehicle-side controller is configured to receive a first measured voltage from the voltage sensor, a second measured current and a second measured voltage from a charger-side controller; and detecting a DC arc fault by comparing the first measured current from the current sensor and the first measured voltage from the voltage sensor to the second measured current and the second measured voltage, respectively.
ELLIOTT discloses detecting a DC arc fault by comparing the current sensed by comparing the first measured current from the current sensor and the first measured voltage from the voltage sensor to the second measured current and the second measured voltage, respectively (¶ 0031: measure the voltage at at least two locations in each power distribution system 30 to determine the voltage drop between the at least two locations. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, the first and second voltage sensors 52, 54 can sense or measure the respective voltages at the output 56 of the SSPC 34 and the input 58 of the electrical load 20. In another non-limiting example, the sensed or measured voltages from the first and second voltage sensors 52, 54 can be supplied, provided, delivered, or communicated to the controller module 46, which can be adapted or configured to determine the voltage drop between the respective locations. Detection of a voltage drop exceeding a value, threshold, range, or the like can imply an arc fault 42 condition, such as the series arc fault 44; ¶ 0051: the positioning of first and second current sensors 252, 254 at the respective SSPC output 56 and electrical load input 58 can be utilized to determine when or if an arc fault 242 is or has occurred, such as a parallel arc fault 244). It would be obvious to apply the technique of detecting a DC arc fault as disclosed in ELLIOTT to the system of GASE as modified by ONO, e.g., such that the vehicle-side controller C of GASE is configured to receive a second measured current and a second measured voltage from, e.g., a charger-side controller. It is noted that the “charger-side controller” is not recited as part of the charging system of claim 11, and as such the references are not relied upon to teach the “charger-side controller”, but rather are relied upon to teach the functionality of the “vehicle-side controller” as recited.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include detecting a DC arc fault by comparing voltage and current measurements as recited in order to detect different arc faults, such as parallel or series arc faults (ELLIOTT, ¶ 0031, 0051).
Regarding claim 13, GASE discloses the current sensor comprises a point field detector (PFD) (¶ 0009, 0032: the current sensor is a light sensor, which can be considered a “point field detector” within the broadest reasonable interpretation, as light is an electromagnetic field, and the light is detected at a specific point in space, i.e., at the charge port T2).
Regarding claim 15, GASE discloses a first contactor connecting the first conductor to the first terminal of the battery system; and a second contactor connecting the second conductor to the second terminal of the battery system (TV1, Fig. 1; ¶ 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 16, GASE as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system as applied to claim 15 but fails to disclose when causing the charging to stop, the vehicle-side controller is configured to: send a message to the charger-side controller to decrease current output to the electric vehicle to zero; and open the first contactor and the second contactor after the current sensed by the current sensor is less than a predetermined current threshold.
ONO discloses when causing the charging to stop, the vehicle-side controller is configured to: send a message to the charger-side controller to decrease current output to the electric vehicle to zero; and open the first contactor and the second contactor after the current sensed by the current sensor is less than a predetermined current threshold (¶ 0098-0100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include causing the charging to stop as recited in order to prevent overcharging and/or prevent damage to the battery.
Regarding claim 25, GASE as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system as applied to claim 11, and GASE further discloses a battery system of the electric vehicle (comprising at least traction battery B as shown in Fig. 1).
GASE as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT fails to disclose the voltage sensor is arranged in the battery system of the electric vehicle.
However, it is noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of the voltage sensor being arranged in the battery system (see ¶ 0034 of the specification as originally filed). Providing the voltage sensor in the battery system would not change the functionality of the voltage sensor, and would not provide new or unexpected results, and constitutes an obvious rearrangement of parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the voltage sensor arranged in the battery system for the purpose of detecting arc faults at or adjacent to the battery system.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GASE in view of ONO and ELLIOTT as applied to claims 11, 13, 15-16, and 25 above, and further in view of FRIEDRICH (US 2022/0224136; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 12, GASE as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system as applied to claim 11 but fails to disclose the current sensor has a bandwidth greater than 100KHz.
FRIEDRICH discloses a current sensor having a bandwidth of 100Khz, and discloses the bandwidth is a result effective variable (¶ 0010). It is submitted that providing the bandwidth greater than 100Khz would be an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the current sensor having bandwidth greater than 100KHz in order to measure faster changes in the current signal.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GASE in view of ONO and ELLIOTT as applied to claims 11, 13, 15-16, and 25 above, and further in view of TOMIMBANG (US 2009/0154033; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 14, GASE as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system as applied to claim 13 but fails to disclose the current sensor is selected from a group consisting an anisotropic magneto-resistive (AMR) sensor, a giant magneto- resistive (GMR) sensor, a tunnel magneto-resistive (TMR) sensor, and a Hall effect sensor.
TOMIMBANG discloses the current sensor is a Hall effect sensor (abstract, ¶ 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the current sensor as a Hall effect sensor in order to utilize the known characteristics of Hall effect sensors.
Claim(s) 22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BECH in view of ONO and ELLIOTT as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6, 21, 24, and 29 above, and further in view of MIHARA (US PG Pub 2012/0048617; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 22, BECH as modified by ONO and ELLIOTT teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1 but fails to disclose the current sensor comprises a zero current core-based annular sensor.
MIHARA discloses the current sensor comprises a zero current core-based annular sensor (¶ 0040, 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the charging system of BECH by utilizing a zero current core-based annular sensor instead of the current sensor of BECH in order to utilize the known characteristics of zero current core-based annular sensors.
Regarding claim 26, BECH discloses the current sensor is integrated with the insulation layer (e.g., current sensor 122 is integrated along with insulation layer 148/154 in the housing 124’ as shown in Figs. 4 & 5).
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BECH in view of ONO, ELLIOTT, and FRIEDRICH as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of MIHARA (US PG Pub 2012/0048617; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 27, BECH as modified by ONO, ELLIOTT, and FRIEDRICH teaches the charging system as applied to claim 2, but fails to disclose the current sensor comprises a zero current core-based annular sensor.
MIHARA discloses the current sensor comprises a zero current core-based annular sensor (¶ 0040, 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the charging system of BECH by utilizing a zero current core-based annular sensor instead of the current sensor of BECH in order to utilize the known characteristics of zero current core-based annular sensors.
Regarding claim 28, BECH discloses the current sensor is integrated with the insulation layer (e.g., current sensor 122 is integrated along with insulation layer 148/154 in the housing 124’ as shown in Figs. 4 & 5).
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 MANUEL HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a-5p 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-2312. 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.
/Manuel Hernandez/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 11/12/2025
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights