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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL office action is a response to the amendments and remarks received on 10/14/2025. Applicant’s remarks and amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the §102 and §103 rejections of claims 1-17 are maintained. Claims 1-17 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3 556 597 B1 to Zoon et al. (“Zoon”).
As to independent claim 1 and similarly recited independent claim 9 and similarly recited dependent claim 10, an electric vehicle (EV) charging system (¶ 0001), comprising: an EV charger comprising a current control unit (¶ 0049: inverter 16 controlled by controller 20. Inverter 16 serves as the current source, controller 20 manages it.); a charge connector (¶ 0057, 0058: Plug 36, with connectors 38, acts as the charge connector.); a charge cable connecting the EV charger with the charge connector (¶ 0048: Cable 14 interconnects charger (base unit) with plug.); a cooling circuit (¶ 0050: Cooling system 22 qualifies as a cooling circuit.); and a plurality of temperature sensors attached to the cooling circuit at different positions (¶ 0051, 0063-0064: Sensor 34 at coolant tank, sensor 60/60’ at the connector base (interior/exterior).) and providing measured temperatures to the control unit (¶ 0071-0072: Controller 20 receives data from both sensors, which is used in computations.); wherein the control unit is configured to control charge current in dependence on temperature differences measured between temperature sensors of the plurality of temperature sensors (¶ 0072-0076: Controller 20 compares estimated contact temperatures and interrupts charging current based on that comparison.).
As to claim 2 and similarly recited claim 11, the electric vehicle charging system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to control the charge current additionally in dependence on an absolute temperature measured by temperature sensors of the plurality of temperature sensors (¶ 0051, 0063-0064, 0075: Controller 20 receives absolute temperature values from sensor 34 (Tf) and sensor 60/60’ (Tb). The comparison is against an absolute temperature threshold, not just a difference.).
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 8 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoon in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0375309 to Fuhrer (“Fuhrer”).
Zoon teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 from which claims 8 and 17 depend, respectively. Zoon, however, does not teach the controller evaluates time-based trends of temperature or differential temperature (e.g., slopes, rolling averages, deltas over time).
Fuhrer teaches the control unit stores a time profile of differential temperature and compares it to a setpoint trend profile to determine whether to control charging current (¶ 0050-0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated this trend-based control logic into the system of Zoon to improve charging safety and responsiveness by accounting for not only absolute temperature differences, but also their temporal evolution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 12-16 remain objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Zoon does not teach or suggest each element of claims 1 and 9. Specifically, Applicant contends Zoon does not disclose “the control unit is configured to control charge current in dependence on temperature differences measured between temperature sensors of the plurality of temperature sensors”, as recited in claim 1, nor the step of “controlling a charge current provided to the EV from the EV charging system based on the determined temperature difference” measured between sensors, as recited in claim 9.
Applicant asserts Zoon instead relies on estimating a contact temperature Tc from the connector base temperature Tb and the cooling fluid temperature Tf, and then controlling the charge current based on whether Tc exceeds a threshold. Applicant maintains this estimation process is not equivalent to control based on a measured temperature difference between temperature sensors, as required by the claims.
Examiner disagrees. Zoon explicitly teaches the use of two temperature sensors at different locations in the cooling circuit: one measuring the cooling fluid temperature Tf and another measuring the connector base temperature Tb (¶ 0051, 0063-0071). Zoon further teaches the difference between these sensor readings (Tb-Tf) is determined and used to calculate an estimated contact temperature Tc, which is then compared to a threshold to control the charging current (¶ 0073-0076).
Although Zoon expresses this logic in terms of an intermediate value Tc, this value is linearly derived from the measured temperature difference between the sensors. Therefore, the control logic is in dependence on a temperature difference measured between temperature sensors, as required by claims 1 and 9 under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, the rejections of claim 1 and 9 are maintained. The rejections of all claims are made FINAL.
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 extension fee 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 Examiner SURESH MEMULA whose telephone number is (571)272-8046, and any inquiry for a formal Applicant initiated interview must be requested via a PTOL-413A form and faxed to the Examiner's personal fax phone number: (571) 273-8046. Furthermore, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner via email (suresh.memula@uspto.gov) on the condition the communication is pursuant to and in accordance with MPEP §502.03 and §713.01. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9am-6pm. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned (i.e., central fax phone number) is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SURESH MEMULA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851