DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 01/04/2023 claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-18 are amended. Claims 19-20 are new. Claims 1 is independent.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2023 and 01/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the control logic (esp. in claims 7-10 and 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. To overcome this objection, the applicant should add a flowchart with steps containing brief text describing the control logic.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification would need to be amended to include the reference characters to be added in the requested flowchart as objected to in the drawings (above). No new matter should be entered.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7 replace “of” with --and-- so that it reads “between the charging conductors and the electrically conductive contact” to improve readability. For examination purposes this limitation will be interpreted as “between the charging conductors and the electrically conductive contact”, however, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 replace “a” with --the-- so that it reads “the contact” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10 replace “loader” with --charging-- so that it reads “the charging relay” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes this limitation will be considered as “the charging relay”, however, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5 replace “the” with --a-- so that it reads “a charging plug” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 replace the two instances of “the” with --a-- so that it reads “of a charging cable or of a charging plug” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 replace “A” and “an” with --the-- so that it reads “The charging station for charging the electric vehicle”; and in line 6 replace “an” with --the-- so that it reads “the electric vehicle” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 replace “an” with --the-- so that it reads “the electric vehicle”; in line 3 replace “a” with --the-- so that it reads “the charging conductor”; and in line 4 replace “a” with --the-- so that it reads “the charging station” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised to review the claims for any other antecedent basis issues and correct them appropriately.
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.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneyasu et al. (Japanese Patent JP 2013027144 A).
With respect to independent claim 1, Kaneyasu teaches a device for monitoring a contact between charging conductors of a charging station for charging an electric vehicle comprising Claim 1; ¶ [12]).
Kaneyasu teaches a signal generator configured to output an alternating test signal at the charging conductors (Fig. 5; ¶ [30]; inspection signal generation unit 20 outputs a sine wave alternating voltage).
Kaneyasu teaches an evaluation unit configured to determine, based upon the test signal, whether an electrically conductive contact exists between the charging conductors (¶ [50-54]; the device sends a test signal through the connectors and if the voltmeter reads a voltage within the expected range the system knows the connectors are properly connected with not faults, but if the reading falls outside the range it indicates a problem).
Claims 1-9, 11, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jefferies et al. (USPGPN 20130300429).
With respect to claim 1, Jefferies teaches a device for monitoring a contact between charging conductors of a charging station for charging an electric vehicle (Figs. 1-4; abstract; an apparatus for performing diagnostic tests on the conductors of an electric supply equipment 100/200 for charging electric vehicles 101).
Jefferies teaches a signal generator configured to output an alternating test signal at the charging conductors (Fig. 2; ¶ [31; 33]; a diagnostic unit 250 and monitoring circuit 109/209 generates and transmits various test signals onto the conductors of the EVSE 100/200).
Jefferies teaches an evaluation unit configured to determine, based upon the test signal, whether an electrically conductive contact exists between the charging conductors (Fig. 3; ¶ [40-42; 54-55; 59] computing device 300 is configured to determine, based upon the test signals, whether an electrically conductive contact exists between the charging conductors. Diagnostic unit 250 detects parallel arcing between the charging conductors thus one of ordinary skill understands parallel arcing occurs due to a short between the conductors (i.e., an electrically conductive contact exists between the charging conductors), see ¶ [40-42]. Computing device 300 receives inputs from the diagnostic unit 250 through the diagnostic interface 313 in order to make determinations, see ¶ [54-55; 59]).
With respect to claim 2, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Jefferies teaches wherein the test signal comprises a voltage signal (¶ [33-42]; the diagnostic unit 250 performs various tests to detect corrosion, insulation breakdown, arcing, high impedance faults, etc. in which one of ordinary skill understands involve a generated voltage signal for testing).
With respect to claim 3, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Jefferies teaches wherein the test signal is periodic (¶ [22]; a PWM signal generator or other oscillator (not shown) for generating an oscillating signal which one of ordinary skill understands to be periodic).
With respect to claim 4, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Jefferies teaches wherein the signal generator comprises an oscillator circuit (¶ [22]; an oscillator).
With respect to claim 5, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Jefferies teaches a coupling element, connected between the signal generator and the charging conductors, configured to output the test signal of the signal generator to the charging conductors, wherein the coupling element galvanically insulates the charging conductors from the signal generator (¶ [32]; additional components for electrically isolating (i.e., galvanically insulate) the diagnostic unit 250 from the conductors).
With respect to claim 6, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5. Further, Jefferies teaches wherein the coupling element couples the signal generator capacitively to the charging conductors for outputting the test signal of the signal generator to the charging conductors (¶ [32]; the additional components for electrically isolating the diagnostic unit 250 from the conductors includes capacitors).
With respect to claim 7, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Jefferies teaches a control unit, wherein the evaluation unit is configured to signal to the control unit whether there is a contact between the charging conductors and the electrically conductive contact (Fig. 2; ¶ [40-41, 52]; a control electronics 207, wherein the diagnostic unit 250 bidirectionally communicates with the control electronics 207 including when there is a parallel arcing fault in which one of ordinary skill understands to be a contact between the charging conductors and the electrically conductive contact).
With respect to claim 8, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Jefferies teaches wherein the control unit is configured to output a fault state (Figs. 2-3; ¶ [52, 53, 55]; the control electronics 207 outputs to the diagnostic unit 250, which outputs to the diagnostic interface 313, which outputs to an I/O module 309 through processor 301 notifications to a user of problems including parallel arcing faults).
With respect to claim 9, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Jefferies teaches electrically connect the charging conductors to the charging current source if there is no contact (Fig. 2; ¶ [52]; the contactors 206 are commanded to open/close in the case of an arcing fault, if there is none present (i.e., no contact), then the contactors are closed connecting the charging conductors to the AC electric supply 212).
With respect to claim 11, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Jefferies teaches wherein a test region for monitoring the contact between the charging conductors is limited by electrical disconnection (¶ [75]; EVSE 200 (i.e., diagnostic unit 250) may perform diagnostics whether or not a connection is present. One of ordinary skill understands that certain test regions for monitoring the contact between the charging conductors (i.e., the fault) is limited by electrical disconnection (i.e, when a connection is not present)).
With respect to claim 14, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Jefferies teaches wherein the control unit is configured to output, when the contact is present, a fault state of the charging cable or of the charging plug before a signal conductor of the charging cable or of the charging plug signals a connection between the charging station and the electric vehicle, and/or output a fault state of the electric vehicle after a signal conductor of the charging cable or of the charging plug signals a connection between the charging station and the electric vehicles. (Figs. 1-2; the proximity line signals a connection between the EVSE connector 103/203 and the vehicle connector 105/receptacle 210 (see ¶ [23-24]) however the EVSE 200 (i.e., diagnostic unit 250) may perform diagnostics whether or not a connection is present and thereby output fault results to a user (see ¶ [75]). One of ordinary skill understands a fault is outputted before or after a connection is made and confirmed).
With respect to claim 17, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Jefferies teaches a charging station for charging an electric vehicle (Fig. 2; EVSE 200 for charging an EV 101), comprising: a charging current source (Fig. 2; AC electric supply 212).
Jefferies teaches a charging relay configured to selectively electrically disconnect and connect the charging current source and the charging conductors of a charging cable for charging an electric vehicle in, respectively, an open or closed state of the charging relay (Fig. 2; contactors 206 are configured to selectively electrically disconnect and connect the AC electric supply 212 and the charging conductors of a cable 204 for charging an EV 101 with respect to an open or closed state of the contactors 206).
Jefferies teaches a control unit configured to output, in the open state of the charging relay, the test signal to the charging conductors by the signal generator of the device and, based upon the test signal, determine by the evaluation unit whether there is an electrically conductive contact between the charging conductors (Figs. 2-3; control electronics 207 allows for diagnostics to be performed on the charging conductors using the test signals produced by diagnostic unit 250 and monitoring circuit 209 to determine by the diagnostic unit 250/computing device 300 whether there is an electrically conductive contact between the charging conductors).
Jefferies teaches wherein the control unit is configured to output a fault state when the contact is present and/or to close the charging relay for charging the electric vehicle when there is no contact (Figs. 2-3; the control electronics 207 outputs to the diagnostic unit 250, which outputs to the diagnostic interface 313, which outputs to an I/O module 309 through processor 301 notifications to a user of problems including parallel arcing faults and/or closes the contactors 206 for charging of the EV 101 if no contact is present).
With respect to claim 18, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Jefferies teaches a charging plug for charging an electric vehicle, comprising:
a charging conductor selectively electrically connected to a charging current source of a charging station via a charging cable (Fig. 2; EVSE connector 203 for charging an electric vehicle comprising charging conductors selectively electrically connected to an AC electric supply 212 of an EVSE 200 via a cable 204).
With respect to claim 19, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2.
Further, Jefferies teaches wherein the voltage signal comprises an electrical voltage induced between the charging conductors (One of ordinary skill understands the tests performed involves inducing a voltage between the charging conductors for diagnostic purposes).
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 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jefferies et al. (USPGPN 20130300429) and further in view of Hofheinz (USPGPN 20110273139).
With respect to claim 10, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 9. Further, Jefferies teaches wherein the charge current source is configured to output, in accordance with the control unit, a charging current and/or a charging voltage to the charging conductors, wherein a charging relay selectively electrically disconnects and connects the charging current source and each of the charging conductors in accordance with the control unit in, respectively, an open or closed state of the charging relay (Fig. 2; AC electric supply 212 is configured to output a charging current/voltage to the charging conductors, wherein contactors 206 selectively electrically disconnect and connect the AC electric supply 212 and each of the charging conductors in accordance with the control electronics 207 command of the contactors 206 to be in an open or closed state).
However, Jefferies fails to explicitly teach a power conversion unit.
Hofheinz teaches a power conversion unit (Fig. 1; abstract; rectifier means 16 for converting a supply voltage into a DC voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Hofheinz’s power conversion unit to Jefferies’ EVSE apparatus for performing diagnostics, 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).
With respect to claim 12, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 11. However, Jefferies fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one frequency-selective filter element is arranged or interposed on each of the charging conductors or jointly on the charging conductors on the output side of the charging station and/or in the charging plug.
Hofheinz teaches wherein the at least one frequency-selective filter element is arranged on each of the charging conductors on the output side of the charging station (Figs. 1, 3; compensation current filtering means 56 is arranged on each of the charging conductors on the output side of the power charging device 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Hofheinz’s frequency-selective filter element to Jefferies’ EVSE apparatus, 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).
With respect to claim 13, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 11. However, Jefferies fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one frequency-selective filter element envelopes the charging conductors in each case or together with ferrites and/or comprises a parallel resonant circuit with damping resistor and/or frequency-selective arrangements of inductances and/or capacitances with damping resistors.
Hofheinz teaches wherein the at least one frequency-selective filter element comprises a parallel resonant circuit with damping resistor and/or frequency-selective arrangements of inductances and/or capacitances with damping resistors (Fig. 3; compensation current filtering means 56 is arranged in a parallel to the charging conductors and one of ordinary skill understands filters are arranged with inductors and/or capacitors with damping resistors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Hofheinz’s frequency-selective filter element to Jefferies’ EVSE apparatus, 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).
Claims 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jefferies et al. (USPGPN 20130300429).
With respect to claim 15, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Jefferies teaches wherein the evaluation unit is configured to detect a voltage built up by the test signal between the charging conductors and/or a current driven by the test signal in the charging conductors, and to determine an impedance between the charging conductors based upon the voltage and/or the current (¶ [34, 42]; continuity and resistance of the conductors is measured (see ¶ [34]) and impedance discontinuities are measured (see ¶ [42]) in which one of ordinary skill understands involves voltages and currents of the test signals being measured).
Jefferies discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the evaluation unit determines an existence of the contact between the charging conductors if the impedance is less than or greater than a threshold value of the impedance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine a fault exists if the impedance is less than or greater than a threshold value of the impedance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 16, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Jefferies teaches wherein the evaluation unit is configured to detect a damping of the test signal (¶ [37]; the diagnostic unit performs TDR measurements in which one of ordinary skill understands involves reflections caused by impedance discontinuities and test signal damping along the conductors).
Jefferies discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine an existence of the contact between the charging conductors if the damping is greater than or less than a threshold value of the damping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine a fault exists if the impedance is less than or greater than a threshold value of the damping, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 20, Jefferies teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 3.
Jefferies discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a frequency of the test signal is less than 100 MHz or 10 MHz and/or greater than 1 kHz or 10 kHz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a frequency of the test signal to be less than 100 MHz or 10 MHz and/or greater than 1 kHz or 10 kHz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hein et al. (German Patent DE 102012202269 A1) teaches methods for detecting short circuits as identified in the International Search Report.
Kaminski et al. (German Patent DE 3812633 A1) teaches different alternatives to coupling the test signal into the charging conductors in an electrically isolating manner and of measuring the damping of the test signal as identified in the International Search Report.
DeDona et al. (USPGPN 20150097526) teaches a vehicle connected to electric vehicle supply equipment is configured to wake-up an onboard charger based on a pilot signal. A controller is configured to interrupt the pilot signal to prevent the pilot signal from subsequently waking the charger to reduce power consumed by the charger while the vehicle is connected. The interruption may be triggered by a completion of a charge cycle, an extensive charge wait interval, or a charging system condition that prevents charging. The controller may discontinue interruption of the pilot signal in response to a wake-up source other than the pilot signal.
Haines et al. (USPGPN 20110216453) teaches an electrical device configured to be disposed in an electrical distribution system between a source of electrical power and an electrical load. The electrical distribution system includes at least one line hot conductor, a line neutral conductor, and a line ground conductor. The line neutral conductor is connected to the line ground conductor at a termination point in the electrical distribution system. The electrical load includes at least one load hot conductor, a load neutral conductor, and a load ground conductor. The device includes a grounding confirmation circuit that includes at least one signal generator that directs at least one test signal into a current path that includes at least the line ground conductor. The grounding confirmation circuit is configured to determine a ground continuity status of the current path based on at least one ground continuity measurement. The circuit interrupter is prevented from entering the reset state if the at least one ground continuity measurement does not meet a predefined quality threshold. The at least one ground continuity measurement being a function of the at least one electrical load parameter after the circuit interrupter is in the reset state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859