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 .
Final Office Action
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
(a) Claim date: 09/09/2026 (amendment).
(b) Priority date: 12/13/19.
(c) Claim status (final office action): Rejected 1, 21-30, objected 2-9, 31, cancelled 10-20.
Applicant’s argument and Examiner’s Response
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered; however, some/all are NOT found to be persuasive because of the following reasons:
Applicant:
Newly amended claims have overcome the art rejection.
Examiner:
The examiner partially agrees with the applicant’s argument.
For the independent claims 2 and 3, the examiner considers that the amendments were sufficient to overcome the art rejection; however, for claim 1, it was not. Therefore, the art rejections for independent claims 2, 3 (and their dependent claims) are withdrawn; and the art rejections for independent claim 1, (and their dependent claims) are maintained.
In addition, a new limitation for claims 1, 2 and 3 brings some additional confusion, see newly added 112 rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter, which the applicant regards as his invention.
MPEP 2173.02: Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322. For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.
Rejected claims (including dependent claims): 1-10, 21-31.
(a) Claim 1, 2 and 3, the limitation “battery powered mobile charger” is unclear.
Examiner’s analysis:
An ordinary skilled in the art will have confusion to distinctly interpret the following limitation, “battery powered” and “mobile charger”. Consider the following reasonable but completely different interpretations below:
For limitation “battery powered”:
The charger sits on an assembly, and the assembly is driven by motor, and the motor is powered by the battery. For example, some of the golf carts are battery powered instead of engine powered.
The charger needs no electric power from the grid line; instead, it has internal storage battery that is used to deliver energy required by the charging system.
The charging system is getting energy from a local genset that is battery powered for system initiation (like a car starter).
For limitation “mobile charger”:
A charger is used for charging small mobile systems (i.e. mobile phones etc.).
A charger is used for charging large mobile systems (i.e. mobile homes etc.).
A vehicle charging system that is physically portable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 102
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, 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lee (US 10,358,041 B2).
(As to claim 1, Lee discloses)
1. (Original) A vehicle comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
400
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a connection port designed to interface with a battery power mobile charger [FIG. 1: vehicle 100 includes a charging socket 104 that connects to a charging connector 152]
[Examiner’s note: Please note that for properly charging the vehicle (i.e. Fig. 1, INSIDE VEHICLE), the key requirement is a matching power supply source (i.e. AC voltage, frequency, phases, current etc.). The receiving car cares less about whether this supply is coming from grid line, a local genset or a battery inverter. Therefore, this limitation is getting no patentable weight. On the other hand, if the key invention is the portable charger, then the claims need to be re-written differently, focusing more on the portability features.].
PNG
media_image2.png
348
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a vehicle battery [FIG. 3: high-voltage battery 102]
PNG
media_image3.png
324
346
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a vehicle battery management unit configured to control a current and a voltage of charging and output by detecting a temperature, a current, and a voltage in each module of the vehicle battery [FIG. 2: controller 210 control a current and a voltage of charging and output by detecting temperature, current, and voltage in each module of the vehicle battery];
a power conversion unit comprising a motor and an inverter and configured to convert a voltage received at the connection port to a magnitude of voltage that charges the vehicle battery [Col. 8–9, FIG. 9: motor 212 and the inverter 206 installed in the electric vehicle 100 operate as a converter to boost a DC voltage of 400V,]; and
a charging management unit coupled to the vehicle battery management unit and the power conversion unit [Col. 5, FIG. 2–3: on-board charger (OBC) 302 that is coupled to both the controller 210 (vehicle battery management unit)].
(As to claim 21, Lee discloses)
21. (New) The vehicle of claim 1, wherein
the motor and the inverter are configured to perform DC-DC conversion without a separate power conversion device [Col. 8–9, FIG. 9: explicitly discloses that the charging apparatus of FIG. 9 “boost[s] a DC voltage of 400V to 800V by using the motor 212 and the inverter 206 installed in the electric vehicle 100 as a converter, without including the converter 304,” and further states “since the charging apparatus shown in FIG. 9 requires no converter].
(As to claim 22, Lee discloses)
22. (New) The vehicle of claim 1, wherein
the power conversion unit comprises a microcontroller unit (MCU), the motor, and the inverter, and the power conversion unit is configured to operate as a DC-DC converter [Col. 5, Col. 8–9, FIG. 2, FIG. 9–10: discloses that the power conversion unit comprises the controller 210 (MCU), the motor 212, and the inverter 206, and that the motor 212 and inverter 206 operate as a DC-DC converter to boost 400V to 800V].
(As to claim 23, Lee discloses)
23. (New) The vehicle of claim 22, wherein
the power conversion unit is configured to convert a voltage from 400 V to 800 V [Col. 8–9, FIG. 9: “a DC voltage of 400V provided from the second rapid charger 354 may be boosted to a DC voltage of 800V” using the motor 212 and inverter 206 as a converter, directly disclosing that the power conversion unit converts a voltage from 400V to 800V].
(As to claim 24, Lee discloses)
24. (New) The vehicle of claim 1, further comprising
a first capacitor configured to charge a voltage provided from a mobile charger and a second capacitor configured to charge a voltage converted from the power conversion unit [FIG. 4, FIG. 10, Col. 5, row 20-25: a capacitor C connected in parallel to the input terminals of the converter 304 configured to remove ripples of a DC voltage that is input (first capacitor, charging voltage provided from the external charger);].
(As to claim 25, Lee discloses)
25. (New) The vehicle of claim 24, wherein
the first capacitor is configured to be charged by a voltage of 400 V, and the second capacitor is configured to be charged by a voltage of 800 V [FIG. 4, Col. 5: the capacitor C at the input of the converter 304, the first capacitor is charged by 400V and the second capacitor is charged by 800V]
(As to claim 26, Lee discloses)
26. (New) The vehicle of claim 1, wherein
the power conversion unit is configured to convert a voltage from 400 V to 800 V [Col. 8–9, FIG. 9: as discussed above for claim 23, Lee explicitly discloses that the motor 212 and inverter 206 boost a DC voltage of 400V to 800V, disclosing that the power conversion unit is configured to convert a voltage from 400V to 800V]
(As to claim 27, Lee discloses)
27. (New) The vehicle of claim 1, further comprising
a vehicle charging management system (VCMS) configured to manage charging of the vehicle [ FIG. 2: the controller 210 constitutes a vehicle charging management system (VCMS) configured to manage charging of the vehicle, disclosing a VCMS configured to manage charging of the vehicle]
(As to claim 28, Lee discloses)
28. (New) The vehicle of claim 1, wherein
the vehicle battery is configured with a plurality of battery modules storing electrical energy for driving the vehicle [FIG. 2: 102 is a large-capacity lithium battery storing electrical energy that drives the motor 212 to generate power].
(As to claim 29, Lee discloses)
29. (New) The vehicle of claim 1, wherein
the connection port is configured to connect with a bidirectional charging cable [FIG. 1, Col. 5: charging socket 104 connects to a charging connector 152 installed in an external charging facility via a charging cable; bidirectional charging cables enabling both charging and discharging (V2G/V2L)].
(As to claim 30, Lee discloses)
30. (New) The vehicle of claim 1, further comprising
a link capacitor configured to charge a power supplied from the charger, wherein the link capacitor is configured to be charged by a voltage of 800 V [FIG. 4, FIG. 7, Col. 6: capacitor C in the boost circuit context explicitly provides a link capacitor charged by the 800V output voltage, disclosing a link capacitor configured to charge a power supplied from the charger wherein the link capacitor is configured to be charged by a voltage of 800V].
Allowable Subject Matter
The following claims would be allowable if all rejections/objections cited in this office action (if any) are overcome and rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.The reason for this allowance is: the claimed subject matter could not have been anticipated or obviated using any prior arts.Allowable claims are: 2-9 and 31.
Conclusion
If any prior art made of record in the form PTO-892 and not relied upon, then those arts should simply be considered as pertinent, to the applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The time for reply to a final rejection is as follows (MPEP paragraphs: 7.39, 7.40, 7.40.01, 7.40.02.fti, 7.40.02.aia, 7.41, 7.41.03, 7.42.03.fti, 7.42.031.fti, or 7.42.09):
A shortened statutory period will expire at 3 months from the date of the final rejection or on the date the advisory action is mailed, whichever is later. Thus, a variable reply period will be established. If the last day of "2 months of the date of the final Office action" falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday within the District of Columbia, and a reply is filed on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.7(a), the reply is deemed to have been filed within the 2 months period and the shortened statutory period will expire at 3 months from the date of the final rejection or on the mailing date of the advisory action, whichever is later (see MPEP § 710.05). In no event can the statutory period for reply expire later than 6 months from the mailing date of the final rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED ALAM at telephone number is (571) 270-1507, fax number is (571) 270-2507 and email address:mohammed.alam@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM to 4PM (EST), Monday to Thursday. 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohammed Alam/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights