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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, regarding the limitation “while operation of other charging devices among the plurality of charging devices is prevented”, 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.
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 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand et al. (WIPO publication WO 2012/117192 A1 – published Sep. 7, 2012), in view of Rao et al. (USPGPN 2018/0208066) and Liu et al. (Chinese Publication CN 112373320 A - published Feb. 2021).
Regarding Claim 1, Morand (Fig.1 & 2) teaches an apparatus for detecting an error in a coupling between charging devices, the apparatus comprising:
a voltage generation unit (VMAX & RG1/2/3) generating voltages (Vana) that correspond to resistance values (RP), respectively, of a plurality of charging devices (Pg.6, Para 3: cable for mode 1, 2, or 3) that are hooked up to a connector (Pg.6, Para 3: vehicle side socket);
a comparison unit (107; Pg.4, Para 3: resistance measuring device includes a processor) comparing magnitudes of voltage values of the generated voltages (Pg.4, Para 4: processor performs algorithm of Fig.3, comparing generated voltages, Vnum, to voltages, vmax); and
a control unit (103) performing control in such a manner that, among the plurality of charging devices, a charging device preset to be matched based on results of comparing the magnitudes of the voltage values (Pg.20 & 21, Table 1: determined coding resistances, determined from comparing generated voltages, have associated Mode 1 designation and maximum current) is operated only when hooked up to the connector (presence of a connection is required to determine the coding resistance, therefore it operates when hooked up to the connector).
Morand fails to explicitly teach the control unit performing control while operation of other charging devices among the plurality of charging devices is prevented.
However, Rao teaches a control unit (Fig.6, 215) which measures a resistance value of a resistor present in a charging device (Fig.6, R_CC; ¶0065: control module obtains the resistance value across the connection and is matched with built-in resistance values in all types of external charging plugs) and determines an abnormal state when other charging devices of the plurality of charging devices is present (¶0065: when the connection state is abnormal, when the resistance value of R_CC does not match a built-in resistance value, the connection state is abnormal and a fault prompt signal and/or preset control signal is sent controlling related functions).
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 Morand with Rao to include a determination of a connection of other charging devices of a plurality of charging devices as an abnormal connection. Doing so may help the system avoid a charging accident, as evidenced by Rao (¶0065).
Moreover, Liu teaches a charging control unit (Pg.9,Para.7: BMS1) which prevents operation of a connected charging device when an abnormal state is determined (Pg.9,Para.7: S33-if the measured voltage matches the expected voltage, there is no fault in the connection, otherwise a fault is determined and charging is stopped).
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 Morand, in view of Rao, with Liu to include preventing operation of other charging devices for the benefit of improved charging safety, as evidenced by Liu.
Regarding Claim 10, Morand teaches (Fig.1 & 2) a method of detecting an error in a coupling between charging devices, the method comprising:
generating, by a voltage generation unit, voltages (Vana) that correspond to resistance values (RP), respectively, of a plurality of charging devices (Pg.6, Para 3: cable for mode 1, 2, or 3) that are hooked up to a connector (Pg.6, Para 3: vehicle side socket);
comparing, by a comparison unit, magnitudes of voltage values of the generated voltages (Pg.4, Para 4: processor performs algorithm of Fig.3, comparing generated voltages, Vnum, to voltages, vmax); and
performing, by a control unit, control in such a manner that, among the plurality of charging devices, a charging device preset to be matched based on results (Pg.20 & 21, Table 1: determined coding resistances, determined from comparing generated voltages, have associated Mode 1 designation and maximum current) of the comparison is operated only when hooked up to the connector (presence of a connection is required to determine the coding resistance, therefore it operates when hooked up to the connector).
Morand fails to explicitly teach performing control while operation of other charging devices among the plurality of charging devices is prevented.
However, Rao teaches a control unit (Fig.6, 215) which measures a resistance value of a resistor present in a charging device (Fig.6, R_CC; ¶0065: control module obtains the resistance value across the connection and is matched with built-in resistance values in all types of external charging plugs) and determines an abnormal state when other charging devices of the plurality of charging devices is present (¶0065: when the connection state is abnormal, when the resistance value of R_CC does not match a built-in resistance value, the connection state is abnormal and a fault prompt signal and/or preset control signal is sent controlling related functions).
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 Morand with Rao to include a determination of a connection of other charging devices of a plurality of charging devices as an abnormal connection. Doing so may help the system avoid a charging accident, as evidenced by Rao (¶0065).
Moreover, Liu teaches a charging control unit (Pg.9,Para.7: BMS1) which prevents operation of a connected charging device when an abnormal state is determined (Pg.9,Para.7: S33-if the measured voltage matches the expected voltage, there is no fault in the connection, otherwise a fault is determined and charging is stopped).
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 Morand, in view of Rao, with Liu to include preventing operation of other charging devices for the benefit of improved charging safety, as evidenced by Liu.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6, & 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand, in view of Rao and Liu, as applied to claims 1 & 10 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (USPGPN 2022/0289051 A1 – filed Jul. 30, 2020).
Regarding Claim 2, Morand, as modified, teaches wherein the plurality of charging devices include:
a plug connected to a first electric power source (Pg.2, Para 5: mode 1);
a charging station gun connected to a second electric power source (Pg.2, Para 5: mode 3); and
Morand, as modified, fails to explicitly teach an outlet hooked up to the charging device connected to an electric power source, the outlet connected to an inlet on a vehicle in which a battery to be charged is mounted.
However, Huang teaches a vehicle-to-vehicle connection (Fig.2) which includes an outlet (120) that is connected to an electric power source (200), which connects to an inlet (310) on a vehicle (300).
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 Morand, in view of Rao and Liu, with Huang to include an outlet which connects to the vehicle to be charged, which includes the charging device. Doing so allows for an additional detection mode of a vehicle-to-vehicle connection for charging.
Regarding Claim 3, Morand, as modified, teaches wherein the control unit controls the charging device, such that the control unit controls the electric power source (Abstract: charging device connects the battery to a socket) based on a control pilot (CP) signal (Pg.3. Para 3: communication on a pilot line) for starting transmission of electric power of the electric power source (Pg.3, Para 3: voltage is not supplied unless a pilot line communication is established).
Regarding Claim 5, Morand, as modified, teaches wherein a first voltage corresponding to a resistance value of the outlet is higher than a second voltage corresponding to a resistance value of the plug, and a third voltage corresponding to a resistance value of the charging station gun is higher than the first voltage.
The examiner notes that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See for example: In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It appears that determining a voltage based on the resistance value of an outlet, plug, and charging station gun in order to find workable ranges for differentiating the devices would have possible through routine experimentation.
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 a voltage associated with the charging station gun be higher than a voltage associated with a voltage associated with the outlet, which is higher than a voltage associated with the plug. Doing so allows the system to differentiate between the connector types connected.
Regarding Claim 6, Morand, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein a resistance value of the outlet is within a first resistance section, a resistance value of the plug is a resistance value within a second resistance section that is higher than all resistance values within the first resistance section, and a resistance value of the charging station gun is a resistance value within a third resistance section that is higher than all resistance values within the second resistance section.
The examiner notes that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See for example: In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It appears that determining a resistance value of an outlet, plug, and charging station gun in order to find workable ranges for differentiating the devices would have possible through routine experimentation.
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 a resistance associated with the charging station gun be higher than a resistance associated with the plug, which is higher than a resistance associated with the outlet. Doing so allows the system to differentiate between the connector types connected.
Regarding Claim 11, Morand, as modified, teaches wherein in the generating of the voltages, the plurality of charging devices include:
a plug connected to an alternating current power source (Pg.2, Para 5: mode 1);
a charging station gun (Pg.2, Para 5: mode 3); and
Morand, as modified, fails to explicitly teach an outlet hooked up to the charging device connected to an electric power source, the outlet connected to an inlet on a vehicle in which a battery to be charged is mounted.
However, Huang teaches a vehicle-to-vehicle connection (Fig.2) which includes an outlet (120) that is connected to an electric power source (200), which connects to an inlet (310) on a vehicle (300).
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 Morand, in view of Rao and Liu, with Huang to include an outlet which connects to the vehicle to be charged, which includes the charging device. Doing so allows for an additional detection mode of a vehicle-to-vehicle connection for charging.
Regarding Claim 12, Morand, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein in the generating of the voltages, a first voltage corresponding to a resistance value of the outlet is higher than a second voltage corresponding to a resistance value of the plug, and a third voltage corresponding to a resistance value of the charging station gun is higher than the first voltage.
The examiner notes that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See for example: In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It appears that determining a voltage based on the resistance value of an outlet, plug, and charging station gun in order to find workable ranges for differentiating the devices would have possible through routine experimentation.
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 a voltage associated with the charging station gun be higher than a voltage associated with a voltage associated with the outlet, which is higher than a voltage associated with the plug. Doing so allows the system to differentiate between the connector types connected.
Regarding Claim 13, Morand, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein in the generating of the voltages, a resistance value of the outlet is within a first resistance section, a resistance value of the plug is a resistance value within a second resistance section that is higher than all resistance values within the first resistance section, and a resistance value of the charging station gun is a resistance value within a third resistance section that is higher than all resistance values within the second resistance section.
The examiner notes that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See for example: In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It appears that determining a resistance value of an outlet, plug, and charging station gun in order to find workable ranges for differentiating the devices would have possible through routine experimentation.
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 a resistance associated with the charging station gun be higher than a resistance associated with the plug, which is higher than a resistance associated with the outlet. Doing so allows the system to differentiate between the connector types connected.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand, in view of Rao, Liu, and Huang, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Berger et al. (USPGPN 2018/0091191 A1 – published Mar. 29, 2018).
Regarding Claim 4, Morand, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the CP signal is a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal, and the control unit computes a maximum duty of the CP signal based on a voltage value of a voltage corresponding to a resistance value of the plug that is connected to an alternating current power source.
However, Berger teaches that a vehicle determines a maximum charging power based on a pulse-width-modulated signal (¶0033: vehicle is notified of a maximum charging current or power which can be provided through pulse width modulation of a pilot signal).
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 Morand, in view of Rao, Liu, and Huang, with Berger to have the control unit compute a maximum duty cycle of the CP signal to indicate a maximum current as shown in Table 1, based on a resistance value of the plug indicating it is not mode 1. Doing so allows the vehicle to determine a maximum charging current it can safely draw from the charging source.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand, in view of Rao, Liu, and Huang, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (USPGPN 2021/0184478 A1 – published Jun. 17, 2021) and Lee et al. (USPGPN 2022/0194249 A1 – effectively filed Jun. 23, 2022).
Regarding Claim 7, Morand, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the connector comprises: a first hook-up unit hooked up to the plug; and a second hook-up unit hooked up to the outlet, wherein the first hook-up unit and the second hook-up unit are marked with different colors.
However (Fig.6A), Jung teaches a connector (200) which includes a first hook-up unit (1002) connected to a plug (100; ¶0051: connector may be connected to commercial power source).
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 Morand, in view of Rao, Liu, and Huang, with Berger to include a connector with a first hook-up unit. Doing so allows for interchangeability of devices to allow for the potential to charge from a variety of sources.
Moreover, Lee teaches a charging system in which the outlet is disconnected from the connector (Fig.2, 200/Fig.6, 601, indicating the presence of a second hook-up unit on the connector).
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 Morand, in view of Rao, Liu, and Huang, with Lee to include a second hook-up unit for the connecter to connect an outlet. Doing so allows for interchangeability of outlet plugs for a vehicle connection.
Moreover, Huang teaches the use of different colors for identification of different parts is common practice in the art (¶0026: the appearance of different plugs are obviously marked differently by means of different colors).
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 hook-up units to have different color markings. Doing so allows for an obvious differentiation between the hook-up units.
Claim(s) 8 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand, in view of Rao and Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (USPGPN 2015/0288201 A1 – published Oct. 8, 2015).
Regarding Claim 8, Morand, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the comparison unit is a comparator that outputs an output voltage having a non-zero value in a case where a value of a first voltage to be input into a negative terminal is lower than a value of a second voltage to be input into a positive terminal and outputs an output voltage having a zero value in a case where the value of the first voltage is equal to or higher than the value of the second voltage.
However, Hatakeyama teaches a charging system which uses a comparator (Fig.4, 20) to indicate a condition by outputting a non-zero value when the voltage on the negative terminal is lower than the voltage on the positive terminal (¶0040: the output of the comparator becomes high when the voltage on the negative-side terminal becomes lower than the voltage on the positive side terminal) and outputting a low signal when the voltage on the negative terminal is higher than the voltage on the positive terminal.
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 Morand, in view of Rao and Liu, to use a comparator, as taught by Hatakeyama, for the comparison unit, instead of the processor taught by Morand. Doing so would allow for a reduction of the processing load on the processor.
Regarding Claim 9, Morand, as modified, teaches wherein the control unit performs control in such a manner that the charging device preset to be matched based on the output voltage is operated only when hooked up to the connector (presence of a connection is required to determine the coding resistance, therefore it operates when hooked up to the connector).
Claim(s) 14 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran, in view of Rao, Liu, and Huang, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama.
Regarding Claim 14, Morand, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein in the comparing of the magnitudes of the voltage values, the comparison unit outputs an output voltage having a non-zero value in a case where a value of a first voltage to be input into a negative terminal is lower than a value of a second voltage to be input into a positive terminal and outputs an output voltage having a zero value in a case where the value of the first voltage is equal to or higher than the value of the second voltage.
However, Hatakeyama teaches a charging system which uses a comparator (Fig.4, 20) to indicate a condition by outputting a non-zero value when the voltage on the negative terminal is lower than the voltage on the positive terminal (¶0040: the output of the comparator becomes high when the voltage on the negative-side terminal becomes lower than the voltage on the positive side terminal).
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 Morand, in view of Rao, Liu, and Huang, to use a comparator, as taught by Hatakeyama, for the comparison unit, instead of the processor taught by Morand. Doing so would allow for a reduction on the processing load on the processor.
Regarding Claim 15, Morand, as modified, teaches wherein in the performing of the control, the control unit performs control in such a manner that, among the plurality of charging devices, a charging device matched based on the output voltages is operated only when hooked up to the connector (presence of a connection is required to determine the coding resistance, therefore it operates when hooked up to the connector).
Conclusion
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