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
This office action has been issued in response to the amendment filed on September 25, 2025.
Claims 1- 20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered. Rejections have been maintained where arguments were not persuasive. Also, new rejections based on the amended claims have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected, and this action is made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the reference numeral 312 appears on Fig.3.
In response, Fig.3 includes elements 300, 304 and 308. The reference sign 312 does not appear on said figure. Accordingly, the drawing objection has not been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1 and 11 overcome the previous 112(b) rejections. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues Cheng does not disclose the alleged recharging component being disposed in the electric vehicle.
Newly presented prior art Kautz (US 2016/0176299) discloses the amended limitation of: a recharging component (155) disposed in the electric vehicle (115) (Fig.2) (Par.15-16).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues Cun does not disclose a vehicle port.
Newly presented prior art Prasad et al. (US 2021/0237716) discloses a recharging component comprises a port (34) (Fig.1) of an electric vehicle (10) (Par.26), the port (34) communicatively connected to an energy source (14) of the electric vehicle (10) (Par.22 and 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Prasad in the system of Kautz (which discloses wireless recharging) to have had to have had expanded the charging capabilities of the electric vehicle by including different mechanisms and methods to receive power that are utilized based on availability (Par.27).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues Resnick’s alleged teaching is part of a base station, not part of the vehicle.
Newly presented prior art Kautz (US 2016/0176299) discloses the recharging component further comprises an alarm system (Par.44-45).
Applicant argues with respect to claims 10 and 20, Roy is relied upon as allegedly teaching a recharging system for an EV with a controller configured to utilize machine learning process2. Roy FIG. 2 clearly shows a ground-based charging station 200. As with the other references, Roy has no teaching or suggestion regarding an on-board recharging component including a ventilation system as recited in Applicant's claims. Thus, Cheng in view of Roy fails to teach or suggest all elements of Applicant's claims 10 and 20.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
Kautz discloses a recharging component (155) (Fig.2) disposed in the electric vehicle (115) (Par.15-16), wherein the recharging component (155) includes a ventilation system (170) (Par.19); and a control pilot (150) (Par.19).
Roy et al. (US 11,270,243) was utilized for disclosing a system for recharging an electric vehicle (EV) (Fig.2), comprising: a controller configured to utilize a machine learning process (Col.6, Lines 18-25).
The claims are rejected under the combination of Kautz in view of Schreiber and Roy as seen in the office action below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Kautz teaches a recharging component (155) (Fig.2) disposed in the electric vehicle (115) (Par.15-16), wherein the recharging component (155) includes a ventilation system (170) (Par.19).
Applicant argues with regard to the rejection of claim 15, Cheng makes no mention of particles or directing them away from recharging component 50 as alleged. Even if arguendo Cheng did so, it would be in the ground-based equipment, not in the electric vehicle/aircraft as recited in Applicant's claim 15.
Kautz teaches a recharging component (155) in an electric vehicle (115) (Fig.2) (Par.15-16).
Cheng discloses a ventilation system (55) configured to direct a flow of particles away from the recharging component (50) (Par.58, The ventilation system circulates air (CF) away from the recharging component.) (Fig.9A).
The rejection is based on the combination of Kautz and Cheng.
Applicant argues with regard to the rejection of claim 18, Cheng's recharging component and ventilation system are ground-based. It would thus seem unlikely that Cheng would be able to improve the environmental quality of the aircraft's energy source, which is on board the aircraft.
Kautz teaches a recharging component (155) in an electric vehicle (115) (Fig.2) (Par.15-16).
Schreiber et al. (US 2020/0070668) discloses an electric vehicle includes an electric aircraft (Par.34).
The claim is rejected based on the combination of Kautz in view of Schreiber and Cheng as seen in the action below.
With regard to the rejection of claims 12, 13, 16, and 17 applicant argues there is no teaching in Cheng or Boss to display the ventilation requirement datum of an electric vehicle or UAV on-board recharging component ventilation system as recited in Applicant's claims 12 and 13.
Kautz teaches a pilot display is of the electric vehicle (Par.45).
Schreiber teaches an electric vehicle includes an electric aircraft (Par.34).
Cheng teaches a pilot display (display in 30) coupled to an electric aircraft (10) (Fig.2A), wherein the pilot display is configured to display a ventilation requirement datum to a pilot (Par.52, The analysis of the sensed data is displayed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Cheng in the combination of Kautz in view of Schreiber to have had presented analysis results to have had allowed operators to control the system based on the presented analysis (Par.52) thereby improving efficient operation of the system.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 312 in Paragraph 12. 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. 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 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.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (US 2016/0176299) in view of Schreiber et al. (US 2020/0070668).
Claim 1: Kautz teaches a system for recharging an electric vehicle (115) (Fig.1), the system comprising:
a recharging component (155) (Fig.2) disposed in the electric vehicle (115) (Par.15-16), wherein the recharging component (155) includes a ventilation system (170) (Par.19), wherein the recharging component (element 110 included in 155) is configured to supply power to an energy source (125) (Fig.1) of the electric vehicle (115) (Par.15), and wherein the ventilation system (170) is configured to permit a flow of a gas (Par.26);
a sensor (195) at the recharging component, wherein the sensor (195) is configured to generate an environment datum (Par.22); and
a control pilot (150) in electronic communication with the sensor (195) (Par.19), wherein the control pilot (150) is configured to:
receive the environment datum from the sensor (195) (Par.22);
generate a ventilation requirement datum (amount of gas flow) as a function of the environment datum (Par.25; Appropriate adjustments to the flow of gas are made based on the received sensor data.); and
command the recharging component (155) to perform a ventilation process using the ventilation system (170) as a function of the ventilation requirement datum (amount of gas flow) (Par.25).
The embodiment of Fig.2 of Kautz does not explicitly disclose the ventilation system is configured to permit the flow of gas at least one of towards and away from at least one of the recharging component and the energy source.
The embodiment of Fig.4 of Kautz discloses a ventilation system configured to permit a flow of gas towards a recharging component (Par.34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had permitted the flow of gas towards the recharging component of Fig.2 of Kautz to have had facilitated the cooling of recharging elements during wireless charging where high temperatures are a concern as disclosed by the embodiment of Fig.4 of Kautz (Par.34).
Kautz does not explicitly teach the electric vehicle including an electric aircraft.
Schreiber teaches an electric vehicle includes an electric aircraft (Par.34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had substituted the electric vehicle in the system of Kautz for an electric aircraft as they are known elements as taught in Schreiber (Par.34) with the reasonable expectation that the system for recharging comprising a ventilation system would maintain its functions in the electric aircraft; with the predictable result of providing ventilation to the recharging elements of the electric aircraft thereby protecting charging elements from heat related malfunctions.
Claim 7: Kautz in view of Schreiber teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches wherein the ventilation process includes activating the ventilation system (170) of the recharging component (155) (Par.25; The ventilation system inherently includes activation to begin the flow of gas.).
Claim 8: Kautz in view of Schreiber teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches wherein the ventilation process is configured to improve an environment quality of the energy source (125) (Par.58, The ventilation process permits cooling during the charging process which improves the environment quality of the energy source.).
Claim 9: Kautz in view of Schreiber teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches the recharging component further comprises an alarm system (Par.44-45).
Claim 11: Kautz teaches a s teaches a method of ventilating an energy source (125) of an electric vehicle (115), the method comprising:
providing a recharging component (155) (Fig.2) disposed in the electric vehicle (115) (Par.15);
providing a ventilation system (170) of the recharging component (155) (Par.19), wherein the recharging component (element 110 included in 155) is configured to supply power to an energy source (125) (Fig.1) of the electric vehicle (115) (Par.15), and wherein the ventilation system (170) is configured to permit a flow of a gas (Par.26);
generating, by a sensor (195), an environment datum related to the recharging component (155) (Par.22); and
receiving, at a control pilot (150) of the electric vehicle (115), the environment datum from the sensor (195) (Par.22);
generating, at the control pilot (150), a ventilation requirement datum (amount of gas flow) as a function of the environment datum (Par.25; Appropriate adjustments to the flow of gas are made based on the received sensor data.); and
commanding, via the control pilot (150), the recharging component (155) to perform a ventilation process using the ventilation system (170) (Par.25).
The embodiment of Fig.2 of Kautz does not explicitly disclose the ventilation system is configured to permit the flow of gas at least one of towards and away from at least one of the recharging component and the energy source.
The embodiment of Fig.4 of Kautz discloses a ventilation system configured to permit a flow of gas towards a recharging component (Par.34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had permitted the flow of gas towards the recharging component of Fig.2 of Kautz to have had facilitated the cooling of recharging elements during wireless charging where high temperatures are a concern as disclosed by the embodiment of Fig.4 of Kautz (Par.34).
Kautz does not explicitly teach the electric vehicle including an electric aircraft.
Schreiber teaches an electric vehicle includes an electric aircraft (Par.34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had substituted the electric vehicle in the system of Kautz for an electric aircraft as they are known elements as taught in Schreiber (Par.34) with the reasonable expectation that the system for recharging comprising a ventilation system would maintain its functions in the electric aircraft; with the predictable result of providing ventilation to the recharging elements of the electric aircraft thereby protecting charging elements from heat related malfunctions.
Claim 18: Kautz in view of Schreiber teaches the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches wherein the ventilation process is configured to improve an environment quality of the energy source (125) (Par.58, The ventilation process permits cooling during the charging process which improves the environment quality of the energy source.).
Claim 19: Kautz in view of Schreiber teaches the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches the recharging component further comprises an alarm system (Par.44-45).
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 12-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (US 2016/0176299) in view of Schreiber et al. (US 2020/0070668) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 2020/0001735).
Claims 2-3: Kautz in view of Schreiber teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches a pilot display coupled to the electric vehicle (Par.45).
Kautz does not explicitly teach the electric vehicle including an electric aircraft.
Schreiber teaches an electric vehicle includes an electric aircraft (Par.34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had substituted the electric vehicle in the system of Kautz for an electric aircraft as they are known elements as taught in Schreiber (Par.34) with the reasonable expectation that the system for recharging comprising a ventilation system would maintain its functions in the electric aircraft; with the predictable result of providing ventilation to the recharging elements of the electric aircraft thereby protecting charging elements from heat related malfunctions.
The combination of Kautz in view of Schreiber does not explicitly teach the pilot display is configured to display the ventilation requirement datum to a pilot; the pilot display is comprised on a desktop computer.
Cheng teaches a pilot display (display in 30) coupled to the electric aircraft (10) (Fig.2A), wherein the pilot display is configured to display the ventilation requirement datum to a pilot (Par.52, The analysis of the sensed data is displayed.); the pilot display (display in 30) is comprised on a desktop computer (Par.37) (Fig.2A). Desktop computers are well known in the art as devices that comprise a graphical user interface to allow users to input and retrieve information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the display pilot, displaying ventilation requirement datum, comprised on a desktop computer in the combination of Kautz in view of Schreiber to have had presented analysis results to personnel, locally or remotely, to have had controlled the system based on the presented analysis (Par.52) as taught in Cheng thereby improving efficient operation of the system.
Claims 5-6: Kautz in view of Schreiber teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Kautz does not explicitly teach the ventilation system is configured to direct a flow of particles away from the recharging component; wherein the ventilation system includes an exhaust device.
Cheng teaches the ventilation system (55) (Fig.9A) is configured to direct a flow of particles away from the recharging component (50) (Par.58, The ventilation system circulates air (CF) away from the recharging component.); the ventilation system (55) includes an exhaust device (551B) (Par.57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Cheng in the system of Kautz to have had created a heat dissipation airflow (Par.58) thereby reducing the temperature of the recharging component and protecting the system from damage.
Claims 12-13: Kautz in view of Schreiber teach the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches the pilot display is of the electric vehicle (Par.45); and the pilot display further comprises a GUI (Par.45).
Kautz does not explicitly teach the electric vehicle including an electric aircraft.
Schreiber teaches an electric vehicle includes an electric aircraft (Par.34).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to utilize the system of Kautz in an aircraft as one of ordinary skill in the art would expect an electric vehicle to be substitutable for an aircraft as taught in Schreiber (Par.34) with the expected result of recharging an energy source of the aircraft and providing ventilation.
The combination of Kautz in view of Schreiber does not explicitly teach displaying the ventilation requirement datum to a pilot.
Cheng teaches a pilot display (display in 30) coupled to the electric aircraft (10) (Fig.2A), wherein the pilot display is configured to display the ventilation requirement datum to a pilot (Par.52, The analysis of the sensed data is displayed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Cheng in the combination of Kautz in view of Schreiber to have had presented analysis results to have had allowed operators to control the system based on the presented analysis (Par.52) thereby improving efficient operation of the system.
Claim 15: Kautz in view of Schreiber teaches the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Kautz does not explicitly teach the ventilation system is configured to direct a flow of particles away from the recharging component.
Cheng teaches the ventilation system (55) is configured to direct a flow of particles away from the recharging component (50) (Par.58, The ventilation system circulates air (CF) away from the recharging component.) (Fig.9A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Cheng in the system of Kautz to have had created a heat dissipation airflow (Par.58) thereby reducing the temperature of the recharging component and protecting the system from damage.
Claim 16: Kautz in view of Schreiber and Cheng teach the limitations of claim 13 as disclosed above. Kautz does not explicitly teach the ventilation system includes an exhaust device.
Cheng teaches a ventilation system (55) including an exhaust device (551B) (Par.57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Cheng in the system of Kautz to have had created a heat dissipation airflow (Par.58) thereby reducing the temperature of the recharging component and protecting the system from damage.
Claim 17: Kautz in view of Schreiber and Cheng teach the limitations of claim 13 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches wherein the ventilation process includes activating the ventilation system (170) of the recharging component (155) (Par.25; The ventilation system inherently includes activation to begin the flow of gas.).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (US 2016/0176299) in view of Schreiber et al. (US 2020/0070668) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Prasad et al. (US 2021/0237716).
Claims 4 and 14: Kautz in view of Schreiber teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Kautz does not explicitly teach the recharging component comprises a port of the electric vehicle, the port communicatively connected to the energy source.
Prasad teaches a recharging component comprises a port (34) (Fig.1) of an electric vehicle (10) (Par.26), the port (34) communicatively connected to an energy source (14) of the electric vehicle (10) (Par.22 and 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Prasad in the system of Kautz to have had to have had expanded the charging capabilities of the electric vehicle by including different mechanisms and methods to receive power through that are utilized based on availability (Par.27).
The combination of Kautz in view of Prasad does not explicitly teach the electric vehicle including an electric aircraft.
Schreiber teaches an electric vehicle includes an electric aircraft (Par.34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had substituted the electric vehicle in the combination of Kautz in view of Prasad for an electric aircraft as they are known elements as taught in Schreiber (Par.34) with the reasonable expectation that the system for recharging comprising a ventilation system would maintain its functions in the electric aircraft; with the predictable result of providing ventilation to the recharging elements of the electric aircraft thereby protecting charging elements from heat related malfunctions.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (US 2016/0176299) in view of Schreiber et al. (US 2020/0070668) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Roy et al. (US 11,270,243).
Claims 10 and 20: Kautz in view of Schreiber teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Kautz does not explicitly teach wherein the control pilot is configured to utilize a machine learning process.
Roy teaches a system for recharging an electric vehicle (EV) (Fig.2), comprising: a controller configured to utilize a machine learning process (Col.6, Lines 18-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Roy in the system of Kautz to have had optimized the performance of the charging system (Col.6, Lines 18-25).
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 JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights