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 10/01/2025. Applicant’s remarks and amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the §103 rejections are maintained. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10-14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2020/0290468 to Moseke (“Moseke”) in view of EP 3556597B1 to ABB Schweiz AG (“Schweiz”).
As to claim 16 and similarly recited claims 1 and 10, Moseke teaches: a method (¶ 0001, 0002) for detecting thermal conductivity faults in an electric vehicle (EV) charging connector (Mere intended use is not given patentable weight. MPEP § 2111.02. In any event, Moseke teaches structures and systems for monitoring temperature for abnormality during the charging process using an EV charging plug.), comprising: (¶ 0046: Charging plug 12 for charging a traction battery of a motor vehicle.), the charging connector comprising: a contact element (¶ 0035: load contact 4); a passive cooling device attached to the contact element at a connection point (¶ 0042: contact spring 32 passively conducts heat and is physically/thermally coupled to contact 4.); wherein the contact element and the passive cooling device form a thermal conductive arrangement (¶ 0043: Thermal conduction from contact to spring to plastic to sensor constitutes thermal arrangement.); and at least one temperature sensor attached to the thermal conductive arrangement , the at least one temperature sensor (¶ 0038: temperature sensor 14)
Moseke does not teach a control unit for detecting thermal conductivity faults based on sensor data or comparing the data to a predefined threshold.
Schweiz discloses a method and system for monitoring temperature in an EV charging connector using: a temperature sensor located near the connector base (¶ 0011), a control unit that calculates an estimated contact temperature and compares it to a threshold value to determine the presence of a bad contact (¶ 0012, 0019), and software and/or hardware mechanisms distinguish between normal and abnormal thermal conduction conditions, thereby enabling detection of thermal faults (e.g., insufficient thermal transfer or faulty contact).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the charging connector system of Moseke by incorporating the fault-detection logic and threshold evaluation method taught by Schweiz, in order to enhance safety and reliability by detecting thermal conductivity faults in the charging connector. The combination would have involved a predictable use of known components (i.e. temperature sensors and control logic) in the same technical field (i.e., EV charging systems), to address a known problem (i.e., overheating or faulty thermal transfer).
As to claim 3 and similarly recited claims 11, 12, and 13, the charging connector according to claim 1, further comprising: a control unit associated with the temperature sensor (Schweiz: ¶ 0011, 0012); wherein the connector is configured to provide less or no charging current when a thermal conductivity fault of the thermal conductive arrangement is detected by the control unit (It is inherent and predictable that less or no charging current, or preventing the next charging session, would be provided as a result of detecting an abnormal thermal condition in EV connectors. A PHOSITA would understand and implement such current control in response to overheating because it requires no new hardware, is consistent with established thermal safety protocols, and aligns with routine use of lock-out conditions in EV charging controllers and battery management systems.).
As to claim 4, the charging connector according to claim 3, wherein the thermal conductivity fault is determined by the control unit when a temperature provided by at least one temperature sensor exceeds an allowed range (Schweiz: ¶ 0012, 0019).
As to claim 5, the charging connector according to claim 3, wherein the charging connector includes at least two temperature sensors attached to the thermal conductive arrangement (Neither Moseke nor Schweiz disclose two temperature sensors located on the same thermal conduction path. However, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to: modify the charging connector system of Moseke to include a second temperature sensor on the thermal conduction path (e.g., one near the contact, one near the passive cooling device), apply Schweiz’s differential comparison logic to the two readings, and use this comparison to detect a thermal conductivity fault if the temperature exceeds a threshold. Such an arrangement is a predictable extension of Moseke in view of Schweiz’s teachings, which already use temperature differences and threshold logic to detect abnormal heat conduction. Using two sensors along the same thermal path instead of one internal and one ambient sensor is a routine design choice that a PHOSITA would make to improve fault localization.), wherein the thermal conductivity fault is determined by the control unit when a temperature difference between the at least two temperature sensors exceed an allowed range, and wherein the range is defined by a pre-defined threshold (Schweiz: ¶ 0011, 0012, 0019).
As to claim 7, the charging connector according to claim 1, wherein the at least one temperature sensor is attached to the contact element (Moseke: ¶ 0038, 0043: sensor 14 is thermally coupled to the contact via contact spring 32 and plastic 16.).
As to claim 14, the EV charging connector system according claim 10, wherein the control unit is further configured to indicate that the EV charging connector has to be substituted (Moseke in view of Schweiz does not explicitly state the controller indicates to the user the charging connector must be replaced or substituted. However, this feature is obvious to a PHOSITA based on determining that a bad contact exists (Schweiz: ¶ 0012). A bad contact implies a degraded electrical or thermal interface. Furthermore, it is common practice in safety critical EV system to use sensor feedback to evaluate hardware health and to alert users or service personnel when a connector or cable may need to be replaced. For example, onboard diagnostic system, battery management systems, and charging station controllers often display warnings for persistent fault conditions, log diagnostic trouble codes, and recommend hardware servicing or replacement. A PHOSITA would have had motivation to add a logic output or indicator to the control unit of Schweiz to advise that the connector be substituted once it repeatedly fails thermal checks or exceeds a safe threshold. This is a predictable variation that improves safety and reliability without requiring undue experimentation or invention.).
As to claim 17, the method of claim 16, wherein detecting the thermal conductivity fault includes detecting whether a temperature difference between two temperature sensors exceeds an allowed range (Schweiz: ¶ 0011-0012: detects faults based on the temperature difference between two sensing locations.).
As to claim 19, the method of claim 16, wherein detecting the thermal conductivity fault includes detecting a temperature of the contact element (Moseke: ¶ 0043, Schweiz: ¶ 0012, 0019: temperature is used to detect a bad contact.).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moseke in view of Schweiz and in further view of US Pub. No. 2019/0322186 to Arai (“Arai”).
The combination of Moseke and Schweiz disclose a charging connector assembly with passive cooling and detecting thermal conductivity faults using sensor data and threshold comparisons. The combination, however, does not teach detecting a temperature of a heat pipe.
Arai teaches using a heat pipe as a passive cooling device in an EV charging connector, and temperature sensor thermally connected to the heat pipe to detect abnormal heating (¶ 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the Moseke and Schweiz system by incorporating a heat pipe based thermal path as taught by Arai. The modification allows for incorporating a more efficient passive thermal transfer, facilitates managing and monitoring heat in EV charging connectors of different configurations, or simply provides for substituting one passive conduction mechanism (spring/plastic) with another (heat pipe) and applying the same diagnostic method.
Claims 2, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moseke in view of Schweiz and in further view of US Pub. No. 2008/0128118 to Chen et al. (“Chen”).
Moseke in view of Schweiz teaches evaluating temperature at different points to detect faults (Schweiz: ¶ 0012, 0019). The combination, however, does not teach a heat pipe with an evaporator and condenser, or a fin arrangement on the condenser.
Chen discloses a heat pipe with evaporator and condenser (Abstract) and fin arrangement on the condenser (Abstract).
Furthermore, because Moseke in view of Schweiz teach utilizing a temperature sensor thermally coupled to the heat path (Moseke: ¶ 0038) and evaluating temperature at different points to detect faults (Schweiz: ¶ 0012, 0019) sensing the temperature at the fins is a predictable location for assessing system performance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to:
substitute the passive cooling device of Moseke in view of Schweiz with a heat pipe including evaporator and condenser portions, as taught in Chen, to improve thermal efficiency;
Attach a fin arrangement to the condenser as taught by Chen for effective passive dissipation;
Apply Moseke in view of Schweiz’s fault detection logic to monitor the temperature at the fins to detect insufficient thermal conduction.
Such a combination represents a straightforward substitution of known cooling components, applied in analogous context (thermal management in electronics and charging systems), using well understood fault detection principles.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moseke in view of Schweiz and in further view of EP 4 000 991 to Garcia-Ferre et al. (“Garcia-Ferre”).
Moseke in view of Schweiz implies an outer connector casing (Moseke: ¶ 0034). The combination, however, does not teach an inner housing, external housing comprises a first compartment, an inner housing inside external housing defining a second compartment, inner housing is sealed from external housing, passive cooling device passes through sealed opening to first compartment, and a condenser in first compartment.
Garcia-Ferre teaches all of the features of claims 9 (see Abstract, ¶ 0012, 0022-0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the connector architecture of Moseke to include a dual-housing structure with a sealed inner compartment and passive cooling device (e.g., heat pipe) that passes through a sealed opening, as taught by Garcia-Ferre. Such modification improves thermal isolation and durability of internal components and enhances passive heat dissipation by locating the condenser in a well-ventilated external compartment (i.e., the handle). The modification is a predictable improvement using well-known structural and thermal design techniques for EV connectors, and represents a routine combination of known elements to address known problems.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moseke in view Schweiz and in further view of US Pub. No. 2016/0138980 to Jefferies et al. (“Jefferies”).
Moseke in view of Schweiz teaches an EV connector with sensor (Moseke: ¶ 0034-0038) and a control unit for fault detection using temperature thresholds (Schweiz: ¶ 0012, 0019). The combination, however, does not teach the control unit is located in the EV charging station.
Jefferies teaches an EV charging station connected to a charging connector by electrical conductors (Fig. 1), a temperature sensor is located in the charging handle (Abstract), sensor data is communicated from the handle to the EVSE via the control pilot line (¶ 0022), and the control unit is located in the EV charging station (Fig. 1: 100, 210).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the combination of Moseke in view of Schweiz by positioning the control unit in the EV charging station, as taught by Jefferies, where temperature sensor data is transmitted via known signaling paths (e.g., control pilot line). The modification centralizes system control logic, enhances maintainability, and isolates high-level decision-making hardware from the connector while preserving all function capabilities such as temperature-based fault detection and current regulation. Furthermore, this modification is a routine design variation and represents a predicable substitution of system elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues neither Moseke nor Schweiz teach or suggest that “at least one temperature sensor is attached to the thermal conductive arrangement”, asserting that Moseke expressly teaches away because the temperature sensor is spaced apart from the mounting portion to avoid influence from cooling devices. Remarks, pages 8-9. This argument is not persuasive.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “attached to the thermal conductive arrangement” does not require mechanical attachment to each component of the arrangement, nor direct contact with the passive cooling device. Rather, the limitation is satisfied where the temperature sensor is thermally coupled to, and receives heat conducted through, the thermal conductive arrangement formed by the contact element and the passive cooling device.
Moseke explicitly discloses heat generated at the load contact is conducted via the contact spring and thermally conductive plastics material to the temperature sensor (¶ 0043). Thus, the temperature sensor is intentionally integrated into the thermal conduction path and is thermally attached to the thermal conductive arrangement.
Applicant’s reliance on Moseke ¶ 0007 and ¶ 0037 is misplaced. Moseke’s disclosure that the temperature sensor is “spaced apart” from the mounting portion to reduce measurement distortion from cooling devices does not negate thermal attachment, nor does it teach away from the claimed configuration. Teaching how to optimize sensor placement to improve measurement accuracy does not constitute a discouragement or criticism of attaching the sensor to the thermal conductive arrangement. Moseke still expressly relies on conductive heat transfer from the contact element to the sensor, which would not occur absent such attachment.
Schweiz is properly relied up on for teaching temperature-based fault detection logic using sensor data and threshold comparisons. Schweiz need not disclose passive cooling to remedy the deficiencies alleged by Applicant, as it is cited for control logic and fault detection, not for the cooling structure itself. The combination of Moseke and Schweiz represents a predictable application of known temperature monitoring and fault detection techniques in the same field of endeavor.
Accordingly, Applicant has not demonstrated error in the rejections, and the rejections of claims 1, 10, and 16 under § 103 are maintained.
Applicant additionally argues, with respect to claims 5 and 17, neither Moseke nor ABB Schweiz teach or suggest a charging connector including at least two temperature sensors, nor fault detection based on a temperature difference between them. Applicant acknowledges that neither reference discloses two sensors, but contends it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Moseke to include a second sensor. Applicant asserts Moseke provides no guidance on how or where to add a second sensor, and that Moseke’s disclosure teaches away from placing sensors near passive cooling devices. Applicant concludes that adding a second temperature sensor in the claimed manner would not have been an obvious modification. Remarks, page 9.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 5 and 17 do not require the second temperature sensor to be in any particular location, only that both sensors are attached to the thermal conductive arrangement. Moseke teaches a sensor thermally coupled to the contact element via conductive spring and thermally conductive plastic (e.g., ¶ 0037-0043), and Schweiz teaches thermal conductivity faults can be detected based on a temperature difference between two measurement locations (¶ 0012). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a second sensor in Moseke’s thermal path –such as at a second location along the conductive arrangement – in order to enable differential temperature measurement and improved fault localization, as taught by Schweiz.
Moreover, Moseke’s discussion of spacing the sensor from the mounting portion to avoid measurement distortion (¶ 0007) does not teach away from placing a second sensor elsewhere along the thermal path. Rather, it reflects routine considerations in sensor placement for accurate readings. Applicant has not identified any technical incompatibility that would preclude a second sensor, nor any teaching in the art that would discourage such an addition. The use of multiple sensors to detect thermal gradients or faults is well known in the thermal diagnostics field, and implementing this known approach in the context of Moseke’s connector would constitute a predictable design choice.
Accordingly, the rejections of claim 5 and 17 under § 103 are maintained.
For the reasons above, the rejections of claims 1-20 under § 103 are maintained and 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
Prosecution Insights