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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, regarding Ichikawa teaching a wireless charging system, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).In response to applicant's argument that Ichikawa is nonanalogous art since it is it is “directed exclusively to inductive wireless charging” and not “electrical contact-based charging”, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Ichikawa is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor since it also relates to a mechanism for moving a charging means from a retracted state to a deployed state for charging an electric vehicle.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, regarding the substitution of “coil -> contacts”, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, it was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made that a charging coil or a charging contact could be used for charging an electric vehicle battery, and that a substitution of these elements would not result in undue hardship or experimentation, as evidenced by Miller (USPGPN 2020/0317067) which discloses a system for charging an electric vehicle battery using either a charging coil (Fig.5, 500/502) or a charging contact (Fig.1, 110/112).
In response to applicant's argument that Sebestyen is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Sebestyen is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor since it also relates to a mechanism for moving a charging means from a retracted state to a deployed state for charging an electric vehicle.
In response to applicant's argument that Sebestyen is not combinable with Ichikawa in the proposed manned, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant further argues that Sebestyen does not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed charging contacts. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in the previously presented rejection, Sebestyen (Fig.s 1 &4) teaches a ground coupling device (CS) with charging contacts (4) and a vehicle-side coupling device (304) with charging contacts (301).
Applicant further argues that Ortiz does not teach a telescopic manipulator arm segment as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited in the previous rejection, Ortiz teaches a telescoping arm segment moving a contact plate (¶0079: telescoping tubing or other electromechanically or pneumatically controlled hardware may be used to move the coil). This would be understood to mean that the moveable and flexible charging rod (Fig.16, 113) supporting the charging member (115) may be a telescopic manipulator arm. Furthermore, Ortiz, Fig.16, shows the arm segment is a lower arm (113 below connection point to 193) within a multi-joint manipulator arm (193 & 113) and is supporting a vehicle (190) mounted contact plate (115, ¶0108: charging member in contact with receiving device).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, regarding Ortiz’s location of the sensors, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the knowledge was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made as evidenced by Ortiz locating the sensors in the contact plate for an adjustable contact plate of a charging system.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, regarding Ichikawa’s “minimum distance” teaching, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, Ichikawa is cited to teach lowering a contact plate to a minimum distance from a ground-coupling device, and not charging contacts, as disclosed in the previously presented rejection of claim 8. The modification of Sebestyen is relied upon to teach lowering a contact plate to a minimum distance from charging contacts, for the benefit of high current charging with risk reduction, as evidenced by Sebestyen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (USPGPN 20160082848 A1), in view of Ortiz et al. (USPGPN 20230211683 A1) and Sebestyen (USPGPN 2018/0281611).
Regarding Claim 1, Ichikawa teaches a multi-part refueling device for refueling an electric drive battery of a movable vehicle, comprising:
a vehicle-side coupling device (Fig.7, 13 & 180; Fig.7/31/32/33, 200; Fig.31/32/33, 30A: drive mechanism 30A is an alternative embodiment of drive mechanism 30, which is shown in Fig.7, and so drive mechanism 30A would also be driven by controller 180 through adjuster 9 to move power receiving unit 200) with a charging connection (Fig.7: connection between charger 142 and rectifier 13), a computer and control unit (Fig.7, 180), a contact plate connection designed as an electric cable (Fig.7: connection between power receiving unit 200 and rectifier 13) and a movable contact plate (Fig.7/31/32/33, 200) with connecting means, and
a ground coupling device (Fig.33, 61) arranged in a stationary and fixed manner on the ground, which is compatible with the selected connecting means,
wherein the vehicle-side coupling device carried on the vehicle includes connecting means (Fig.4, 22) and a manipulator arm (Fig.33, 30A) for descending, displacing and lowering the contact plate (Fig.33,200) in a center of the stationary ground coupling device,
wherein the manipulator arm is mounted so that it can be moved up and down (Figs. 31 & 32 show that the manipulator moves up and down to position the contactor plate vertically), has at least one upper arm segment (Fig.33, 150T & 151) pivotally and rotatably mounted on the vehicle side (Fig.33, upper arms 150T & 151 pivot and rotate at 161T & 160T, respectively), a lower arm segment (Fig.33, 130T) where the contact plate (Fig.33, 200) is mounted, and is automatically controlled by the computer and control unit (controller 180 executes drive control of the drive mechanism 30, which would also execute drive control of the alternative embodiment 30A).
Ichikawa fails to explicitly teach the ground coupling device with charging contacts, the vehicle-side coupling device including charging contacts, or the lower arm segment is telescopic.
However, Sebestyen (Figs.1 & 4) teaches a vehicle charging arm system using a ground coupling device (CS) with charging contacts (4) and vehicle-side coupling device (304) with charging contacts (301).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Ichikawa with Sebestyen to use charging contacts instead of charging coils for the ground coupling device and vehicle-side coupling device. Doing so would allow for high current charging while reducing the risk to persons or animals in the vicinity of the vehicle, as evidenced by Sebestyen (¶0004).
Moreover, Ortiz teaches the use of a telescopic arm segment to move a contact plate (¶0079: telescoping tubing or other electromechanically or pneumatically controlled telescoping hardware may be used to move the coil).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Ichikawa to use telescoping hardware for the lower arm segment, as taught by Ortiz, since it would provide a means for adjusting the contact plate’s height without having to further adjust the position of the upper arm segment and therefore increasing the adjustability of the height of the contact plate.
Regarding Claim 2, Ichikawa, as modified, further teaches wherein the manipulator arm includes the upper arm segment (Fig.33, 150T & 151) pivotally and rotatably mounted on the vehicle side (Fig.33, upper arms 150T & 151 pivot and rotate at 161T & 160T, respectively), a joint (Fig.33, 163), a lower arm segment (Fig.33, 130T) and a further joint (Fig.33, 164T) for mounting the contact plate (200), and is automatically controlled by the computer and control unit.
Regarding Claim 3, Ichikawa, as modified, further teaches wherein the upper arm segment of the manipulator arm is pivotally attached to a joint on the vehicle side (Fig.33, 160T & 161T).
Regarding Claim 4, Ichikawa, as modified, further teaches wherein the lower arm segment is designed as a telescopic segment that can be moved electrically, electromechanically or pneumatically controllably by the computer and control unit and can thus be extended linearly (as explained in the rejection of claim 1: [Ortiz] telescoping tubing or other electromechanically or pneumatically controlled telescoping hardware).
Regarding Claim 5, Ichikawa, as modified, further teaches wherein the manipulator arm is designed to be electrically, electromechanically or pneumatically controlled by the computer and control unit (drive mechanism 30A is controlled by the computer, as explained in the rejection of claim 1; Fig.33, 141/¶0290: drive unit 141 may be a pneumatic cylinder).
Regarding Claim 6, Ichikawa, as modified, further teaches having at least one sensor (Fig.7/15, 310) and is connected to the computer and control unit (Fig.7: controller 180 is connected to detectors 310) for determining the optimal position relative to the stationary ground coupling device (¶0230, controller 180, through HV-ECU 470 & detection ECU 460, uses detectors 310 to optimally position the power receiving device 11, and subsequently the power receiving unit 200), wherein the at least one sensor is a contact sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, a magnetic sensor, an optical sensor or an infrared sensor (¶0063: detectors 310 can detect a magnetic field or electric field).
Ichikawa fails to explicitly teach the sensor is arranged on the contact plate or in the inner space of the contact plate.
However, Ortiz teaches that the location of position sensors (Fig.14B, 92 & 94) can be arranged on a contact plate (Fig.14B, 115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Ichikawa, in view of Ortiz and Sebestyen, to position the sensors on the contact plate to facilitate accurate placement of the charging member for increased efficiency, as evidenced by Ortiz.
Regarding Claim 7, Ichikawa, as modified, further teaches the stationary ground coupling device (Fig.7/33, 61) comprises charging electronics (Fig.7, 55, 64, & 230) which starts and ends the refueling process (¶0108: charging is started and stopped), wherein an electric current is fed in a controlled manner (¶0270: indicates that the frequency of the current supplied to the power transmitting coil is adjusted, or controlled).
Regarding Claim 8, Ichikawa, in view of Ortiz and Sebestyen, (as applied to the rejection of claim 1) teaches a refueling method using a multi-part refueling device for refueling an electric drive battery of a movable vehicle, comprising the steps of:
- providing the multi-part refueling device of claim 1 (as explained in the rejection of claim 1)
- positioning the vehicle in the vicinity of a locally fixed immovable ground coupling device (Fig.20, steps S8, S9, & S10)
- operating a computer and control unit to start the refueling process (¶0108, controller 180 sends charging start commands through communication unit 160),
- lowering of a contact plate in the direction of the ground coupling device (Figs. 31 & 33 show the power receiving unit lowered towards the power supply device 61) on the ground beneath the vehicle by means of a manipulator arm electrically, electromechanically or pneumatically controlled (¶0290: drive unit 141 is a pneumatic cylinder) by the computer and control unit in such a way that connecting means of the contact plate are brought to a minimum distance from the ground coupling device (¶0230: the method of controlling the power receiving device 11 accounts for a minimum distance between the power transmitting device and the power receiving device),
- starting the refueling process by applying electricity (¶0109: full-scale charging is started by power supply device 64), and after the refueling,
- transferring the contact plate back into a storage state by means of the manipulator arm (¶0297: when charging completes, power receiving 200 is moved upwards back to position S1).
Ichikawa fails to explicitly teach lowering the contact plate to a minimum distance from charging contacts of the ground coupling device and applying electricity to the charging contacts.
However, Sebestyen teaches lowering the contact plate to a minimum distance from the charging contacts of the ground coupling device (Figs. 2a to 2b: contact element is moved to the stationary contact element until they come in contact) and applying electricity to the charging contacts (¶0007: movable contacting element for electric contact with a stationary contacting element for electric charging of the electric storage arrangement; which indicates electricity is applied to the charging contacts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Ichikawa, in view of Ortiz and Sebestyen, with Sebestyen to lower the contact plate to a minimum distance from the charging contacts of the ground coupling device and apply electricity to the charging contacts. Doing so would allow for high current charging while reducing the risk to persons or animals in the vicinity of the vehicle, as evidenced by Sebestyen (¶0004).
Regarding Claim 9, Ichikawa, as modified, further teaches wherein the manipulator arm includes the upper arm segment (Fig.33, 150T & 151) pivotally and rotatably mounted on the vehicle side (Fig.33, upper arms 150T & 151 pivot and rotate at 161T & 160T, respectively), a joint (Fig.33, 163), a lower arm segment (Fig.33, 130T) and a further joint (Fig.33, 164T) for mounting the contact plate (200), and is automatically controlled by the computer and control unit.
Regarding Claim 10, Ichikawa, as modified, further teaches wherein the upper arm segment of the manipulator arm is pivotally attached to a joint on the vehicle side (Fig.33, 160T & 161T).
Regarding Claim 11, Ichikawa, as modified, further teaches wherein the lower arm segment is designed as a telescopic segment that can be moved electrically, electromechanically or pneumatically controllably by the computer and control unit and can thus be extended linearly (as explained in the rejection of claim 1: [Ortiz] telescoping tubing or other electromechanically or pneumatically controlled telescoping hardware).
Regarding Claim 12, Ichikawa, as modified, further teaches wherein the manipulator arm is designed to be electrically, electromechanically or pneumatically controlled by the computer and control unit (drive mechanism 30A is controlled by the computer, as explained in the rejection of claim 1; Fig.33, 141/¶0290: drive unit 141 may be a pneumatic cylinder).
Regarding Claim 13, Ichikawa, as modified, further teaches having at least one sensor (Fig.7/15, 310) and is connected to the computer and control unit (Fig.7: controller 180 is connected to detectors 310) for determining the optimal position relative to the stationary ground coupling device (¶0230, controller 180, through HV-ECU 470 & detection ECU 460, uses detectors 310 to optimally position the power receiving device 11, and subsequently the power receiving unit 200), wherein the at least one sensor is a contact sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, a magnetic sensor, an optical sensor or an infrared sensor (¶0063: detectors 310 can detect a magnetic field or electric field).
Ichikawa fails to explicitly teach the sensor is arranged on the contact plate or in the inner space of the contact plate.
However, Ortiz teaches that the location of position sensors (Fig.14B, 92 & 94) can be arranged on a contact plate (Fig.14B, 115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Ichikawa, in view of Ortiz and Sebestyen, to position the sensors on the contact plate to facilitate accurate placement of the charging member for increased efficiency, as evidenced by Ortiz.
Regarding Claim 14, Ichikawa, as modified, further teaches the stationary ground coupling device (Fig.7/33, 61) comprises charging electronics (Fig.7, 55, 64, & 230) which starts and ends the refueling process (¶0108: charging is started and stopped), wherein an electric current is fed in a controlled manner (¶0270: indicates that the frequency of the current supplied to the power transmitting coil is adjusted, or controlled).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights