DETAILED ACTION
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-18, 22-25, 30 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eakins et al. US Patent No. 10,518,658.
Regarding claim 17, Eakins discloses a vehicle unit for charging a battery of an electric vehicle [fig. 3, 16; col. 3, lines 25-34; vehicle unit 16], comprising:
a receptacle configured to receive a contact head of a floor unit, wherein the contact head is insertable in the receptacle in an insertion direction [fig. 3-4; col. 3, lines 25-34; col. 5, lines 23-49; connector 34 is insertable into a cavity in 104 (see fig. 4) to mate with the vehicle side connector 38, the insertion direction is vertical (z direction, fig. 3)]; and
contact elements configured to establish an electrical connection with contacts of the contact head, wherein the contact elements are configured to move in a plane perpendicular to the insertion direction to establish the electrical connection with the contact head [figs. 3-5a-5b; col. 4, lines 42-56; col. 5, lines 36-49; col. 6, line 57-col. 7, line 12; contacts of connector 34 mate with contacts of connector 38; the contacts make the connection via perpendicular travel of vehicle connector 34 in the x-axis direction (perpendicular to insertion direction) via the arm 202 forcing the shuttle 204 to transverse to the end wall 105 and make connection].
Regarding claim 18, Eakins discloses further comprising a contact arm [fig. 3 & 7a-7f; col. 7, line 53-col. 8, line 11; the shuttle 204 is moved into place roughly by the linkage arm 36, but then finally placed by the vehicle’s actuator unit 109 (a contact arm)], wherein a contact element is arranged on the contact arm [col. 6, line 57-col. 7, line 12; 34 on 204], and the contact arm is configured such that a movement of the contact arm results in a movement of the contact element into or out of the receptacle in a plane perpendicular to the insertion direction of the contact head [figs. 4-5b; col. 6, line 57-col. 7, line 12; col. 7, line 23-col. 8, line 11; movement of the arm 36 and shuttle 204 results in the contact element moving in or out of the receptacle (the female contact elements of the vehicle unit; col. 5, lines 10-15); then the shuttle is moved via linkage arm 36 in a perpendicular direction (fig. 7B to 7C)and then again in a perpendicular direction to complete the connection (fig. 7D to 7E)].
Regarding claim 22, Eakins discloses wherein the receptacle is defined by a housing having a cutout through which the contact elements are configured to pass to establish the electrical connection with the contacts of the contact head [fig. 3-4; col. 3, lines 25-34; col. 5, lines 23-49; connector 34 is insertable into a cavity in 104 (see fig. 4) to mate with the vehicle side connector 38, the insertion direction is vertical (z direction, fig. 3)].
Regarding claim 23, Eakins discloses further comprising a cover configured to cover the cutout [fig. 3, sliding cover 104; col. 4, line 64-col. 5, line 29].
Regarding claim 24, Eakins discloses further comprising a centering device, wherein the centering device is placeable in the receptacle to position the contact head, and the centering device extends in the insertion direction [fig. 3; gap 107 functions as centering device to center the connectors 34 and 38 upon each other to facilitate mating, it extends downward in the z-direction (insertion direction); col. 21, line 21-55].
Regarding claim 25, Eakins discloses wherein the centering device comprises a pin [col. 4, line 38-56; prongs and guides for prongs].
Regarding claim 30, Eakins discloses a floor unit [fig. 1, 8] comprising:
a contact head configured to charge a battery of an electric vehicle arranged on a lifting device, wherein the contact head is configured to be inserted into a receptacle of a vehicle unit in an insertion direction [fig. 3-4; col. 3, lines 25-34; col. 5, lines 23-49; connector 34 is insertable into a cavity in 104 (see fig. 4) to mate with the vehicle side connector 38, the insertion direction is vertical (z direction, fig. 3) via the linkage device 36 (lifting device)],
the contact head comprises contacts configured to establish an electrical connection with contact elements of the vehicle unit, and the contacts are configured to be contacted in a plane perpendicular to the insertion direction [figs. 3-5a-5b; col. 4, lines 42-56; col. 5, lines 36-49; col. 6, line 57-col. 7, line 12; contacts of connector 34 mate with contacts of connector 38; the contacts make the connection via perpendicular travel of vehicle connector 34 in the x-axis direction (perpendicular to insertion direction) via the arm 202 forcing the shuttle 204 to transverse to the end wall 105 and make connection].
Regarding claim 35, Eakins discloses a charging device for charging a battery of an electric vehicle [figs. 1-3] comprising: the vehicle unit of claim 17 [see rejection of claim 17]; and the floor unit comprising the contact head [fig. 1, floor unit 8; fig. 3-4; col. 3, lines 25-34; col. 5, lines 23-49; connector 34 is insertable into a cavity in 104 (see fig. 4) to mate with the vehicle side connector 38, the insertion direction is vertical (z direction, fig. 3) via the linkage device 36 (lifting device)].
Regarding claim 36, Eakins discloses a method for automatically charging an electric vehicle [fig. 3, 16; col. 3, lines 25-34; vehicle unit 16], comprising:
providing a vehicle unit that is mountable in an underbody of the electric vehicle, wherein the vehicle unit comprises a receptacle and movable contact elements; inserting a contact head of a floor unit into the receptacle of the vehicle unit in an insertion direction; and moving the movable contact elements in a plane perpendicular to the insertion direction to establish an electrical connection between the contact head and the vehicle unit [fig. 3, 16; col. 3, lines 25-34; vehicle unit 16, mounted under vehicle; fig. 3-4; col. 3, lines 25-34; col. 5, lines 23-49; connector 34 is insertable into a cavity in 104 (see fig. 4) to mate with the vehicle side connector 38, the insertion direction is vertical (z direction, fig. 3); figs. 3-5a-5b; col. 4, lines 42-56; col. 5, lines 36-49; col. 6, line 57-col. 7, line 12; contacts of connector 34 mate with contacts of connector 38; the contacts make the connection via perpendicular travel of vehicle connector 34 in the x-axis direction (perpendicular to insertion direction) via the arm 202 forcing the shuttle 204 to transverse to the end wall 105 and make connection, thus the contact elements are “movable”].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 26-27, 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eakins et al. US Patent No. 10,518,658 in view of Xu et al. CN 105375196 A. (It is noted that the Xu citations are taken from the machine translation, until a translation is obtained.)
Regarding claim 26, Eakins does not explicitly disclose wherein the receptacle is substantially rotationally symmetrical and an axis of symmetry of the receptacle extends in the insertion direction.
However, Xu discloses a vehicle charging device inserted vertically into a vehicle [fig. 1, Z direction] wherein the receptacle is substantially rotationally symmetrical and an axis of symmetry of the receptacle extends in the insertion direction [figs. 1 & 6-7; pars. 60 & 63; the male connecter end and female receptive end, and thus rotationally symmetrical, and symmetrically upon the axis of the insertion direction (Z-axis); the contacts 303 and 304 are arranged in the grooves of the male connector].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eakins to further include wherein the receptacle is substantially rotationally symmetrical and an axis of symmetry of the receptacle extends in the insertion direction for the purpose of reducing the possibility of poor manufacturing tolerances leading to the corners of a square type connector not fitting, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 27, Xu as applied in claim 26 discloses wherein the contact head is cylindrical [figs. 1 & 6-7; pars. 60 & 63; a plurality of stack cylinders, thus cylindrical].
Regarding claim 31, Eakins discloses wherein the contact head is rotationally symmetrical, an axis of symmetry of the contact head extends in the insertion direction, and the contacts are arranged in grooves in a lateral surface of the rotationally symmetrical contact head.
However, Xu discloses a vehicle charging device inserted vertically into a vehicle [fig. 1, Z direction] wherein the contact head is rotationally symmetrical, an axis of symmetry of the contact head extends in the insertion direction, and the contacts are arranged in grooves in a lateral surface of the rotationally symmetrical contact head [figs. 1 & 6-7; pars. 60 & 63; the male connected end is circular, and thus rotationally symmetrical, and symmetrically upon the axis of the insertion direction (Z-axis); the contacts 303 and 304 are arranged in the grooves of the male connector].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eakins to further include wherein the contact head is rotationally symmetrical, an axis of symmetry of the contact head extends in the insertion direction, and the contacts are arranged in grooves in a lateral surface of the rotationally symmetrical contact head for the purpose of reducing the possibility of poor manufacturing tolerances leading to the corners of a square type connector not fitting, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 32, Xu as applied in claim 31 discloses wherein the contact head is cylindrical [figs. 1 & 6-7; pars. 60 & 63; a plurality of stack cylinders, thus cylindrical].
Regarding claim 33, Eakins does not explicitly disclose wherein the contacts are arranged one above another in the insertion direction in the lateral surface of the rotationally symmetrical contact head.
However, Xu as applied in claim 31 further discloses wherein the contacts are arranged one above another in the insertion direction in the lateral surface of the rotationally symmetrical contact head [figs. 1 & 6-7; pars. 60 & 63; contacts 303 and 304 are arranged in the grooves of the male connector, one above another in the insertion direction] and contacts are arranged in the form of a ring, one above another [figs. 1 & 6-7; pars. 60 & 63; contacts 303 and 304].
The combination of Eakins and Xu does not explicitly disclose three or six contacts.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the EV charging arts to use 3, 6, or even more contacts to convey various signals including power, data, pilot, ground and others. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu to further include three or six contacts for the purpose of conveying a plurality of control signals in addition to the power and pilot signals, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eakins et al. US Patent No. 10,518,658.
Regarding claim 28, Eakins discloses further comprising a cover configured to cover the receptacle [fig. 3, sliding cover 104; col. 4, line 64-col. 5, line 29].
Eakins does not explicitly disclose wherein the cover comprises a flap with a pivot axis.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the electric vehicle charging arts to use a cover with a flap on a pivot axis, i.e. a hinged flap, to the point of ubiquity with EV vehicles today and in covers for gas tanks in ICE vehicles as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eakins to further include wherein the cover comprises a flap with a pivot axis for the purpose of using a well known and easily manufacturable mechanism to protect the connectors from the elements, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21, 29 and 34 are allowable.
With respect to claim 19, the following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the contact arm comprises a first contact arm and a second contact arm, and a plurality of contact elements are arranged on each of the first contact arm and the second contact arm” in combination with all the other elements recited in claims 17-18, from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 20-21, being dependent on claim 19, is allowable for the same reasons as claim 19.
With respect to claim 29, the following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the cover comprises a hook, and when the cover is closed, the hook is configured to be secured by a kinematic system via securing elements arranged on a contact arm of the vehicle unit” in combination with all the other elements recited in claims 17 and 28, from which claim 29 depends.
With respect to claim 34, the following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the contacts extend substantially in only half of the lateral surface of the rotationally symmetrical contact head, and the contacts each extend in a circular segment that is smaller than 180 degrees and greater than 90 degrees” in combination with all the other elements recited in claims 30 and 31, from which claim 34 depends.
With respect to claim 19, Examiner notes that Xu, which was reference D1 of the International Report (CN 105 375 196A), does not disclose a contact arm, or indeed multiple contact arms. According to the translation of the report, the PCT Examiner claims that Xu discloses that contacts 401 and 402 “implicitly move”, however, Examiner can find no support for this limitation. D1, at best, discloses contacts which are spring-loaded to move in a direction parallel to the insertion direction of the charging terminal.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Westfall et al. US PGPUB 2022/0250495 discloses an electric vehicle charging system wherein the charging connector connects to the vehicle from below.
Graham et al. US PGPUB 2003/0162448 discloses an electric vehicle charging system wherein the charging connector connects to the vehicle from below and the charging connector is round.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE-GONGOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
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.
/DAVID V HENZE-GONGOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859