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
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 9/9/2025 in which claims 1 and 12-20 were amended. No new claims were added. The claim objections, 112(f) interpretation, and 112(b) rejections have been overcome. Therefore claims 1-20 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/9/2025, have been considered but are moot in view of the new
grounds of rejection as necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tombelli US 20220324336 in view of Nakagawa et al. US 20140049217 further in view of Smolenaers et al. US 20220402390.
With regards to claims 1 and 14 Tombelli discloses, a multi-channel, multi-mode electric vehicle (EV) AC to DC charger, comprising:
at least two power channels, each power channel containing an AC/DC converter connected to a corresponding DC/DC regulator, wherein each channel is configured to supply DC power to a connected EV (Fig. 1 discloses 3+ AC/DC 2 DC/DC 5 which are connected to each other as in the claimed "power channels");
a controllable bridging switch, connected in parallel between the at least two power channels and disposed before or after the DC/DC regulators, and when closed provides an intermediary path between the at least two power channels (¶17 "In an embodiment, the charger includes a further switch matrix arranged between the M AC/DC converters and the N DC/DC converters, wherein the further switch matrix is configured for selectively connecting outputs of the M AC/DC converters to the N DC/DC converters");
controllable series switches, connected directly or indirectly after the DC/DC regulators of a respective power channel, and when open provides a break in a power channel output path (Fig. 1 Switch matrix 6); and
a controller controlling at least the AC/DC converters, DC/DC regulators, bridging and series switches (Fig. 1 controller 11),
wherein by action of the controller and switches' engagement, the charger can perform (it has been held that the recitation that an element “can” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform):
charging an EV (Fig. 1 charges a connected EV).
Tombelli fails to disclose (b) in response to not charging the EV, directing power from a connected end device of one power channel of the at least two power channels to a connected end device of another power channel of the at least two power channels, and wherein the charger is further configured to perform at least one of: (c) injecting real or reactive power back to an AC power source, (d) active AC filtering, and (e) phase balancing.
However, Nakagawa discloses, (b) in response to not charging the EV, directing power from a connected end device of one power channel of the at least two power channels to a connected end device of another power channel of the at least two power channels (¶76 “The charging site ECU 24 manages the amount and type of energy (system energy GE or renewable energy RE) stored in the stationary electric storage device 26”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tombelli with Nakagawa to utilize the solar power generating device to charge the battery in order to minimize energy consumption from the grid.
Tombelli fails to disclose wherein the charger is further configured to perform at least one of: (c) injecting real or reactive power back to an AC power source, (d) active AC filtering, and (e) phase balancing.
However, Smolenaers discloses wherein the charger is further configured to perform at least one of: (c) injecting real or reactive power back to an AC power source, (d) active AC filtering, and (e) phase balancing (¶255 “Multimodal systems 500 can act to provide services such as importing power, exporting power, frequency response, phase or load balancing, power factor correction, time shifting, peak shaving, and the like” and fig 1 inductors 161-163 and filter circuit 107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Tombelli with Smolenaers to reduce costs and provide better compatibility with various energy sources and devices.
Method claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claims 2 and 15 the combination discloses the charger, further comprising, a controllable multipole switch (Nakagawa fig 1 distributor 20) terminating each power channel of the at least two power channels and is controlled by the I controller to connect a power channel to its respective EV charging cable or a power channel to a non-EV device (Nakagawa Fig 1 where the distributor is controlled by the ECU and can supply power to either the EV or the storage device).
Method claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claims 3 and 16 the combination discloses, wherein each controllable multipole switch is configured to connect between a non-EV connected channel end device to another non-EV connected channel end device (Tombelli Fig. 1 switch matrix 6 and Nakagawa Fig. 1 where the combination would allow a connection between the non-EV devices).
Method claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claim 4 the combination discloses the charger of claim 1, wherein the AC/DC converter and DC/DC regulator are a single system (Tombelli Fig. 1 discloses the AC/DC and DC/DC in a single system).
With regards to claim 5 the combination discloses the charger of claim 1, wherein the controller is external to at least one of the AC/DC converter and DC/DC regulator (Tombelli Fig. 1 cabinet controller 11 which is external to both AC/DC and DC/DC components).
With regards to claim 6 the combination discloses the charger of claim 1, wherein there is a controller for each channel (Tombelli Fig. 1 cabinet controller 11 where the charger cabinet 9 on the right side of the figure discloses that a single cabinet controller 11 is in control of a single power channel).
With regards to claim 7 the combination discloses, the charger of claim 1, further comprising, a Line Filter forward of the AC/DC converters (Smolenaers Fig. 2 filter 107 where the filter is "forward" of the AC/DC converter 110).
With regards to claim 8 the combination discloses the charger of claim 1, further comprising, a Grid, the Grid coupling AC power to a front end of the charger (Tombelli Fig. 1 item 3 is an energy source such as a power grid).
With regards to claim 10 the combination discloses the charger of claim 8, further comprising, a connection to a point of common coupling (PCC) between the Grid and the charger (Tombelli Fig. 1 item 3 is an energy source such as a power grid connected to the charger which covers the claimed "point of common coupling").
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tombelli US 20220324336 in view of Nakagawa et al. US 20140049217 further in view of Smolenaers et al. US 20220402390 further in view of Keister US 20220348101.
With regards to claims 9 and 17 Tombelli in view of Nakagawa and Smolenaers fails to disclose the charger of claim 8, further comprising, a reactive power generated from at least an AC converter of at least one power channels, the reactive power being fed into the Grid.
However, Keister discloses the charger of claim 8, further comprising, a reactive power generated from at least an AC converter of at least one power channels, the reactive power being fed into the Grid (¶110 "Such operation may occur concurrently with active power flow from the grid network to connected EVs or injection of reactive power into grid network").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Tombelli in view of Nakagawa and Smolenaers with the reactive power grid injection of Keister in order to maintain power levels and support efficient power transfer.
Method claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
Claims 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tombelli US 20220324336 in view of Nakagawa et al. US 20140049217 further in view of Smolenaers et al. US 20220402390 further in view of Huomo US 20110285362.
With regards to claims 11 and 18 Tombelli in view of Nakagawa and Smolenaers fails to disclose the charger, further comprising, at least one of a non-linear load and unbalanced load connected to the PCC.
However, Huomo discloses the charger, further comprising, at least one of a non-linear load and unbalanced load connected to the PCC (Fig. 1 Factory 110, city network 112, domestic users 114, and wind farm 116 (claimed non-linear and unbalanced loads) connected with the transformer node 106 (claimed PCC) to the AC grid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the system of Tombelli in view of Nakagawa and Smolenaers with Huomo to provide increased functionality by adding the connections to the loads as claimed with the charger in order to improve: reaction to variations of power regulation, power quality, and power response within the system.
With regards to claims 12 and 19 the combination discloses the charger, further comprising, at least one of a reactive power and phased power generated from the at least an AC converter of the at least two power channels, the reactive power being fed into the least one non-linear load and unbalanced load (Huomo Fig. 2 power device 202, abstract “The reactive power control device further comprises control means for controlling, on the basis of the detected reactive power characteristic a reactive power contribution to the electricity distribution device so as to adjust a value of the detected reactive power characteristic. This enables individual power consumption and/or provision devices to react autonomously to local variations in the electricity distribution network, and to provide a reactive power contribution, to drive the detected reactive power characteristic towards a desired value”, and ¶61 "The power device 202 may be a consumption device, for example, a low power consumption device, having a power rating of less than 500 W, such as an energy saving lamp, a mobile telephone charger, computing device supply, a medium sized power device, having a power rating of between 500 W and 10 kW, such as a personal electric vehicle (PEV), or a large power device, having a power rating of more than 10 kW, such as industrial machinery located at a factory").
Method claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 12 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tombelli US 20220324336 in view of Nakagawa et al. US 20140049217 further in view of Smolenaers et al. US 20220402390 further in view of Yoshizawa et al. US 20210175711.
With regards to claims 13 and 20 Tombelli in view of Nakagawa and Smolenaers fails to disclose the charger, further comprising, a set of controller software instructions to generate reactive power, the instructions containing modules for: calculating a required total reactive power (Q);adding a reactive power increment (deltaQ) from a reactive power regulator to obtain a modified reactive power (Q') evaluating channel operation status and reactive power levels; adjusting the modified reactive power (Q') if needed; comparing the modified reactive power (Q') or the adjusted Q' to a measured or calculated reactive power value; and sending a signal to the reactive power regulator based on the comparing, to generate a next deltaQ.
However, Yoshizawa discloses the charger of claim 1, further comprising, a set of controller software instructions to generate reactive power, the instructions containing modules for: calculating a required total reactive power (Q);adding a reactive power increment (deltaQ) from a reactive power regulator to obtain a modified reactive power (Q') evaluating channel operation status and reactive power levels; adjusting the modified reactive power (Q') if needed; comparing the modified reactive power (Q') or the adjusted Q' to a measured or calculated reactive power value; and sending a signal to the reactive power regulator based on the comparing, to generate a next deltaQ (Fig. 1 Active and Reactive Power Calculator 120, ¶47 "a deviation between predetermined command reactive power Q0 and target output reactive power, and calculating and outputting the target output reactive power" and ¶73 "For example, target output voltage generator 130 may include: Q drooper 131 that calculates target output reactive power to provide a droop property between a deviation between voltage value Vout_dg relating to inverter 21 and predetermined command output voltage value E0 and a deviation between predetermined command reactive power Q0 and the target output reactive power; and a PI controller that calculates target output voltage E_dg to eliminate a deviation between the target output reactive power and reactive power Qout_dg relating to inverter 21").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Tombelli in view of Nakagawa and Smolenaers with Yoshizawa to calculate and modify the reactive power within the system in order to improve voltage regulation and power quality within the system.
Method claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 13 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
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 Nathan Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights