DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 20 January 2026. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, 16-18, and 21-26 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16-18, and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisacikoglu (US 2019/0165591) in view of Wyant (US 6,907,363), Roehl (DE 4104371), and Yan (US 2022/0410736).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Kisacikoglu discloses a direct current (DC) bus charge module comprising: a DC boost converter (Fig. 2, blocks 108/110); and one or more processors coupled to memory (¶¶89-90), to: apply an output DC voltage from the DC boost converter and having a first voltage level to a DC bus cable with the DC bus cable disconnected from a first DC voltage source (Fig. 2, block 112; Fig. 1, ¶28 first DC voltage source is any DC charging station); and charge an electrical charge storage device that is electrically connectable to the DC bus cable with an output DC voltage from the DC boost converter and having a second voltage level that is different from the first voltage level with the DC bus cable disconnected from the first DC voltage source (¶¶51, 52, 72).
Kisacikoglu does not appear to explicitly disclose determining, responsive to application of the output DC voltage, that a voltage across the DC bus cable indicates a presence of the first voltage level for at least a predetermined amount of time, and verifying, based at least on determination that the voltage across the DC bus cable indicates the presence of the first voltage level for at least the predetermined amount of time, insulation of the DC bus cable. Wyant discloses responsive to application of the output DC voltage, that a voltage across the DC bus cable indicates the presence of the first voltage level, and verifying insulation of the DC bus cable (Figs. 4 and 6A/B; col. 6, lines 1-10 and 23-31). Roehl discloses determining, responsive to application of the output DC voltage, that a voltage across the DC bus cable indicates a presence of the first voltage level for at least a predetermined amount of time, and verifying, based at least on determination that the voltage across the DC bus cable indicates the presence of the first voltage level for at least the predetermined amount of time, insulation of the DC bus cable (¶6). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kisacikoglu, Wyant, and Roehl, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, or the combination of known elements according to known techniques, to achieve the predictable results of accurately testing insulation. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kisacikoglu discloses a charging cable. Wyant teaches that the insulation of the cable should be tested by verifying voltage, and Roehl teaches that the verification should be performed for set time periods. The teachings of Wyant and Roel are directly applicable to Kisacikoglu in the same way, so that Kisacikoglu would similarly test insulation of the charging cable by verifying voltage over set time periods.
Kisacikoglu does not appear to explicitly disclose that the charging of the electrical charge storage device is responsive to verification of the insulation of the DC bus cable. Yan discloses these limitations (¶¶2, 11, 46, Table I). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kisacikoglu, Wyant, Roehl, and Yan, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, or the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to achieve the predictable results of checking insulation before charge initiation to improve safety. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Kisacikoglu discloses a charging system and cable. Yan teaches that charging systems check cable insulation prior to initiating charging to improve safety. The teachings of Yan are directly applicable to Kisacikoglu in the same way, so that Kisacikoglu’s charging system would similarly check cable insulation prior to initiating charging to improve safety.
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 18, Kisacikoglu discloses that the DC boost converter is further configured to: receive an input DC voltage from a second DC voltage source, the input DC voltage having a third voltage level that is less than the first voltage level and the second voltage level; and convert the input DC voltage to the output DC voltage (¶¶51, 52).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Kisacikoglu discloses a voltage sensor configured to sense the output DC voltage and the one or more processors to receive, from the voltage sensor, one or more sets of data which indicate the output DC voltage (¶¶48, 89-90). Wyant also discloses the same (Fig. 7, computer and V1/2 sensors). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Kisacikoglu discloses the one or more processor to cause the DC boost converter to stop conversion of an input DC voltage to the output DC voltage that has the second voltage level responsive to the electrical charge storage device being charged to the second voltage level (¶72).
Regarding claim 9, Kisacikoglu discloses a vehicle-to-other (V2X) charging device (Fig. 1) comprising: a direct current to direct current (DC-DC) converter (Fig. 2, either of 108 or 110); an electrical charge storage device electrically connectable to the DC-DC converter (Fig. 1; ¶58 Table 1); and a DC bus charge module including a DC boost converter (Fig. 2, either of 108 or 110) and one or more processors coupled with the memory (¶¶89-90) configured to: apply an output DC voltage from the DC boost converter and having a first voltage level to a DC bus cable electrically connectable to an input of the DC-DC converter with the DC bus cable disconnected from a first DC voltage source (Fig. 2, block 112; Fig. 1, ¶28 first DC voltage source is any DC charging station); and charge the electrical charge storage device with an output DC voltage from the DC boost converter and having a second voltage level that is different from the first voltage level with the DC bus cable disconnected from the first DC voltage source (¶¶51, 52, 72).
Kisacikoglu does not appear to explicitly disclose determining, responsive to application of the output DC voltage, that a voltage across the DC bus cable indicates a presence of the first voltage level for at least a predetermined amount of time, and verifying, based at least on determination that the voltage across the DC bus cable indicates the presence of the first voltage level for at least the predetermined amount of time, insulation of the DC bus cable. Wyant discloses responsive to application of the output DC voltage, that a voltage across the DC bus cable indicates the presence of the first voltage level, and verifying insulation of the DC bus cable (Figs. 4 and 6A/B; col. 6, lines 1-10 and 23-31). Roehl discloses determining, responsive to application of the output DC voltage, that a voltage across the DC bus cable indicates a presence of the first voltage level for at least a predetermined amount of time, and verifying, based at least on determination that the voltage across the DC bus cable indicates the presence of the first voltage level for at least the predetermined amount of time, insulation of the DC bus cable (¶6). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Kisacikoglu does not appear to explicitly disclose that the charging of the electrical charge storage device is responsive to verification of the insulation of the DC bus cable. Yan discloses these limitations (¶¶2, 11, 46, Table I). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claims 21, 23, and 25, Kisacikoglu discloses electrically connecting does not appear to explicitly disclose electrically connecting the electrical charge storage device with the DC bus cable, but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the connecting is responsive to verification of the insulation of the DC bus cable. Yan discloses these limitations (¶¶2, 11, 46, Table I). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claims 22, 24, and 26, Kisacikoglu discloses the first DC voltage source includes one or more batteries of an electric vehicle, and wherein the one or more batteries are electrically connected to the DC bus cable (Fig. 1, charging is from EVs), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the electrical connection is responsive to verification of the insulation of the DC bus cable. Yan discloses these limitations (¶¶2, 11, 46, Table I). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisacikoglu in view of Wyant, Roehl, Yan, and Zeng (US 2008/0304292).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Kisacikoglu does not appear to explicitly disclose that the DC boost converter includes a flyback converter, but flyback converters are a notoriously well-known type of DC-DC converter, as taught by Zeng (¶29). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kisacikoglu, Wyant, Roehl, Yan, and Zeng, because doing so would have involved merely the routine substitution of an element for a known equivalent to produce merely the predictable results of using conventional converter topologies for bidirectional chargers. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kisacikoglu discloses a charger having a bidirectional DC-DC converter. Zeng teaches that bidirectional DC-DC converters include flyback converters. The teachings of Zeng are directly applicable to Kisacikoglu in the same way, so that Kisacikoglu’s converter would similarly use flyback converters for bidirectional charging.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisacikoglu in view of Wyant, Roehl, Yan, and Ke (CN 207992319).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Kisacikoglu discloses the one or more processors to cause the DC boost converter to stop conversion of the input DC voltage to the output DC voltage that has the first voltage level responsive to the insulation of the DC bus cable being verified (¶¶65-66). If Kisacikoglu is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Roehl also discloses the same (¶6, voltage is applied for fixed time), and the limitation is also implied by Wyant, since the voltage is applied to the cable specifically for insulation testing, and so persons having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the voltage could be stopped once the insulation has been verified. Nevertheless, if Kisacikoglu, Wyant, and Roehl are found to be unclear regarding the limitations at issue, Ke also explicitly discloses the same (p. 4, last paragraph, “existing the insulation resistance test state … a DC voltage conversion circuit 20 stops working”).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kisacikoglu, Wyant, Roehl, Yan, and Ke, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of stopping test voltage to save power. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kisacikoglu discloses a converter that applies a voltage to a cable. Wyant and Baracat teaches applying the voltage to the cable for specified times to test cable insulation, so persons having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the converter could stop application of the voltage to the cable when the insulation is verified. Ke provides explicit disclosure of stopping the voltage from the converter when the insulation is verified, in order to save power. The teachings of Ke are directly applicable to Kisacikoglu in the same way, so that Kisacikoglu would similarly stop voltage from the converter when the insulation is verified, in order to save power.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach newly-added limitations, which are addressed above using newly-cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
13 June 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights