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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/7/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the references given in the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to.
Figs. 1, 2a, and 2b recite “KOWN TECHNIQUE” instead of “KNOWN TECHNIQUE.”
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “High-power charging system” without preceding article “A” for a first introduction of the term.
Claims 2-13 recite “Charging system” without presumed preceding article “The” to clearly reference the previously introduced term.
Claim 1, line 1, recites “electric vehicles” without an article “a” for a first introduction of the term.
Claim 1, line 2, recites “with energy storage unit” without an article “a” for a first introduction of the term.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “High-power charging system” in claim 1 as “A high-power charging system” and interprets “Charging system” in claims 2-13 as “The high-power charging system.” For claim 1, lines 1-2, the examiner interprets “electric vehicles” as “a plurality of electric vehicles” and “with energy storage unit” as “with an energy storage unit.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 1-2, recites “high-power charging system for electric vehicles with energy storage unit.” It is unclear if the energy storage unit meant to be understood as a component of the high-power charging system or the electric vehicles. Since electric vehicles inherently have an energy storage unit and since an energy storage unit is introduced later in claim 1, line 16, the examiner assumes it is a component of the high-power charging system. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “high-power charging system for electric vehicles with energy storage unit” as “high-power charging system for electric vehicles
Claim 1, line 4, recites “the vehicles” without antecedent basis. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “the vehicles” as “the plurality of electric vehicles.”
Claim 1, lines 9-10, recite “switching devices” without antecedent basis. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “switching devices” as “a plurality of switching devices.”
Claim 1, line 12, recites “voltage and current values” without antecedent basis. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “voltage and current values” as “a voltage value and a current value.”
Claim 1, line 16, recites “the charging system” without antecedent basis. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “the charging system” as “the high-power charging system.”
Claim 1, lines 8 and 11, recites “sub-modules” without antecedent basis. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “sub-modules” as “power sub-modules.”
Claims 10 and 11 recite “the storage unit” without antecedent basis. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the term as “the energy storage unit.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “an output power ranging from 150 kW to 475 kW,” and the claim also recites “preferably of about 350 kW“ which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the recited phrase as “an output power ranging from 150 kW to 475 kW
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissonette et al. (US 20120249065 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 20190372465 A1) and Kimura et al. (US 5596258 A, published 1997-01-21), hereinafter referred to respectively as Bissonette, Xu, and Kimura.
Regarding independent claim 1, Bissonette teaches a high-power charging system (Fig. 1: energy management system 210) for electric vehicles (100) with energy storage unit including:
a power unit that can be connected to an electricity supply network (Fig. 3 and ¶[60]: the utility grid 220 is coupled to an AC/DC converter 320 through an electric utility panel 224); and
a dispensing unit to provide electricity to the vehicles to be recharged (Fig. 3: electricity provided to EV through vehicle connector port 101, DC/DC conversion module 305, and high voltage DC bus 300),
wherein said power unit comprises power sub-modules, comprising a bidirectional AC/DC converter (Fig. 3 and ¶[47]: AC/DC electrical conversion module 320 provides power flow AC to DC in one direction and reverse power flow DC to AC in the opposite direction) and a control apparatus configured to independently activate/deactivate each one of said one or more sub-modules (master controller 310 controls AC/DC electrical conversion module 320 via signal path 312b),
wherein said dispensing unit comprises
a control section (master controller 310) which provides switching devices configured to activate/deactivate the connection of the dispensing unit with one or more of said sub-modules (¶[47]: the examiner interprets the master controller 310 controlling the AC/DC electrical conversion module 320 as activating/deactivating the connection through switches typically present in an AC/DC converter), and
a power management board configured to control said switching devices (¶[44-45] and Figs. 2-3: depending on the battery charge level of the vehicle sensed by the battery management system 135, charging is allowed and controlled by the energy management system 210.),
the charging system further comprising an energy storage unit (Fig. 3 and ¶[48]: local energy storage device 230), comprising an input stage connected downstream of said AC/DC converters of the power unit and equipped with a bidirectional DC/DC converter (¶[48]: energy storage device 230 and DC/DC converter electrical conversion module 330 is interpreted by the examiner as downstream to the AC/DC electrical conversion module 320 when the master controller 310 establishes the direction of flow to be toward the energy storage device 230, which in turn is interpreted as the input stage), and an output stage connected to said dispensing unit through said switching devices (Fig. 3 and ¶[42]: High voltage DC Bus 300 leading to EV charging port through DC/DC converter state 305 and power conductor 214. Examiner interprets DC/DC converter as having switches to manipulate voltage and current), the connection of the output stage of the storage unit with the unit dispensing system being activated/deactivated by said power management board on the basis of the voltage and current values required by the vehicles being recharged (¶[48]: DC/DC converter electrical conversion module 330 inherently has switches for controlling the flow of electrical energy through the control of the master controller 310),
wherein each of said power sub-modules comprises a DC/DC converter, connected downstream of the respective AC/DC converter (Figs. 2-3: DC/DC electrical conversion module 305 connected downstream of AC/DC electrical conversion module 320 when considering flow of electrical energy from utility grid 220 to EV 100).
Bissonette does not teach wherein said power unit comprises a plurality of power sub-modules in series/parallel configuration, each comprising a bidirectional AC/DC converter.
Xu teaches a power unit comprises a plurality of power sub-modules in series/parallel configuration, each comprising an AC/DC converter (Fig. 3 and ¶[33-34]: DC buses 330 arranged in parallel, each with a rectifier 130 (AC/DC converter)).
Bissonette and Xu both teach power distribution systems for charging vehicles through the management of AC/DC and DC/DC converters. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the multiple power sub-modules in the system of Xu into the system of Bissonette to quickly charge multiple vehicles (¶[2]) and provide redundancy for charging in case a power delivery path is damaged or has a malfunction.
Bissonette does not explicitly teach said power management board being also configured to communicate with the control apparatus of the power unit to communicate the required voltage and current values,
the connection of the output stage of the storage unit with the unit dispensing system being activated/deactivated by said power management board on the basis of the voltage and current values required by the vehicles being recharged.
Kimura teaches a power management board (Col 3, lines 24-34: charger controller 24) being configured to communicate with the control apparatus of the power unit to communicate the required voltage and current values (Col 1, lines 26-33, 62-67, and Col 2, lines 1-6, and Col 3, lines 60-65: voltage to be charged and set value of the current are transmitted from the electric vehicle to the charger via the communication line),
the connection of the output stage of the storage unit with the unit dispensing system being activated/deactivated by said power management board on the basis of the voltage and current values required by the vehicles being recharged (Col 3, lines 49-52, 60-65: charge controller 24 controls charge based on signals exchanged between vehicle 10 and charger 20).
Bissonette and Kimura teach the charging of electric vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the communication between the charger and vehicle in Kimura in to the system of Bissonette to allow the charger to deliver the appropriate power to the charge the vehicle battery.
Regarding claim 2, Bissonette teaches the high-power charging system according to claim 1, wherein the input stage of the energy storage unit is connected to said AC/DC converters and said DC/DC converters of the power unit (¶[48]: energy storage device 230 and DC/DC converter electrical conversion module 330 is interpreted by the examiner as downstream to the AC/DC electrical conversion module 320 when the master controller 310 establishes the direction of flow to be toward the energy storage device 230, which in turn is interpreted as the input stage).
Regarding claim 3, Bissonette teaches the high-power charging system according to claim 1, wherein said DC/DC converters of the power unit are of the bidirectional type (¶[48]: DC/DC converters are bidirectional) and the input stage of the energy storage unit is connected downstream of said DC/DC converters of the power unit (¶[48]: see rejection for claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 4, Bissonette teaches the high-power charging system according to claim 1, wherein the output stage of said energy storage unit comprises a further unidirectional DC/DC converter (Fig. 3 and ¶[46, 48]: DC/DC converter electrical conversion module 305 in addition to DC/DC converter electrical conversion module 330 used to convert power when power provided by local energy storage device 230. By official notice, bidirectional DC/DC converters are configured to operate as unidirectional converters).
Regarding claim 5, Bissonette in view of Xu teaches the high-power charging system according to claim 1, wherein Xu further teaches said power unit has an output power ranging from 150 kW to 475 kW, preferably of about 350 kW (¶[33]: each DC fast charger module is configured to supply 300 kilowatts to a respective vehicle 110).
Regarding claim 7, Bissonette in view of Xu teaches the high-power charging system according to claim 1, wherein Xu further teaches each AC/DC converter of the power unit has a direct output voltage ranging from 200 V to 1200 V (¶[33] and Figs. 2-3: three-phase voltage is step downed to 480 Volt AC Power and supplied to rectifier 130. The examiner interprets the AC/DC rectifier as outputting a voltage value in the vicinity of 480 Volts DC such as when root mean square calculations are applied to the AC value. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the AC/DC conversion of Xu into Bissonette to produce DC high voltage needed for fast charging as evidenced by Green Transportation cited below1 ).
Regarding claim 8, Bissonette in view of Xu teaches the high-power charging system according to claim 1, wherein Xu further teaches each DC/DC converter of the power unit has a direct output voltage ranging from 200 V to 1500 V (¶[32]: DC/DC buck converters 160 may supply more or less power from the 900 volts in DC distribution busses 140, depending on the implement of fast charging. Level 1 charging typically involves a standard 230 volt as evidenced in Green Transportation).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissonette in view of Xu and Kimura, and further in view of Ito (US 20140176079 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Bissonette in view of Xu teaches the high-power charging system according to claim 1.
Bissonette does not teach wherein each AC/DC converter of the power unit has an output power ranging from 20 kW to 75 kW.
Ito teaches an AC/DC converter of a power unit has an output power ranging from 20 kW to 75 kW (¶[31] and Fig. 1: AC/DC 10 has normal output of 25 kW).
Bissonette and Ito teach charging and discharging of batteries. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the 25 kW AC/DC converter of Ito into Bissonette for when a user wishes to charge their EV at a rate similar to Level 3 charging (see Level 3 charging in Ready Steady Plug cited below2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissonette in view of Xu and Kimura, and further in view of Noguchi et al. (US 20190168630 A1), hereinafter referred to as Noguchi.
Regarding claim 9, Bissonette in view of Xu teaches the high-power charging system according to claim 1.
Bissonette does not explicitly teach wherein each DC/DC converter of the power unit has an output power ranging from 20 kW to 75 kW.
Noguchi teaches wherein each DC/DC converter of the power unit has an output power ranging from 20 kW to 75 kW (¶[36]: DC/DC converter has rated output of 70 kW).
Bissonette and Noguchi teach systems for distributing power and charging and discharging batteries. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the 70 kW DC/DC converter of Noguchi into Bissonette for when a user wishes to charge their EV at a rate similar to Level 3 charging (see Level 3 charging in Ready Steady Plug)
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissonette in view of Xu and Kimura, and further in view of Mrlik et al. (US 20190168630 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mrlik.
Regarding claim 10, Bissonette in view of Xu teaches the high-power charging system according to claim 1.
Bissonette does not teach wherein the storage unit has a continuous output voltage ranging from 200 V to 1500 V (¶[49]: the DC/DC converter electrical conversion module 330 boosts the DC voltage from the local energy storage device 230 to the DC voltage level of the high voltage DC bus 300 which transfers energy to charge the electric vehicle. Voltage levels of a DC bus of a charging station may be as high as 600 V for DC fast charging. See cited document Green Transportation).
Bissonette does not teach the storage unit has a minimum deliverable power of about 125 kW.
Mrlik teaches a storage unit has a minimum deliverable power of about 125 kW (¶[56]: battery discharged at a fixed 200 kW in one hour).
Bissonette and Mrlik both teach the charging and discharging of batteries. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the 200 kW power battery of Mrlik into the system of Bissonette to achieve faster charging rates of electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 11, Bissonette in view of Xu teaches the high-power charging system according to claim 1, wherein the energy storage unite comprises two or more storage units (Fig. 3: plurality of batteries in the Local Energy Storage).
Bissonette does not teach wherein the storage unit is made according to a modular architecture, presenting two or more storage sub-units that can be selectively and independently managed.
Mrlik teaches storage unit is made according to a modular architecture, presenting two or more storage sub-units that can be selectively and independently managed (¶[40]: modular architecture for replacing or upgrading various power electronic components).
Bissonette and Mrlik teach systems managing batteries. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the modular architecture of the charging system in Mrlik into the multi-battery local energy storage 220 in the system of Bissonette to enable fast, efficient, and convention replacement and/or upgrading of various power components (¶[40]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissonette in view of Xu and Kimura, and further in view of Gu et al. (US 20100039062 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gu, and Watson (US 20200180465 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Bissonette teaches the high-power charging system according to claim 1, wherein said dispensing unit comprises:
a user interface (Figs. 6-7 and ¶[5, 63-64, 80, 84, 103, 110]: graphical user interface 350);
Bissonette does not teach an enabling charging and payment system based on RFID, NFC, Bluetooth and/or WiFi;
Gu teaches an enabling charging and payment system based on RFID, NFC, Bluetooth and/or WiFi (¶[28]: the transaction coordination allowing the driver to pay is done by scanning for the RFID device on the vehicle).
Bissonette and Gu teach systems for charging electric vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate charging and payment system of Gu into the system of Bissonette to conveniently pay for vehicle charging.
Bissonette does not teach communication equipment with a backend system, preferably based on 4G/5G with OCPP protocol or other proprietary protocol.
Wilson teaches communication equipment with a backend system (¶[27, 63]: communications between charging stations and a central management system occur through Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP)).
Bissonette and Wilson teach the charging of electric vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the OCPP in Wilson into Bissonette to provide a uniform method of communication between charging stations (see cited source below3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissonette in view of Xu and Kimura, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20110291616 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 13, Bissonette teaches the high-power charging system according to claim 1.
Bissonette does not explicitly teach wherein the communication between the devices is based on CAN bus.
Kim teaches a communication between the devices is based on CAN bus (¶[71]).
Bissonette and Kim both teach power distribution systems for charging devices through the use of AC/DC and DC/DC converters. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the communication scheme of Controller Area Network (CAN) in the system of Kim into the system of Bissonette for ensuring communication has “a high data processing speed, a robust immunity to electrical failure, and a high error detection and calibration capacity, and therefore, is adequate to a control system sensitive to noise like the electric vehicle” (¶[71]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CALeVIP (“EV Charging Basics” < https://calevip.org/electric-vehicle-charging-101 > Posted online 2026)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryu-Sung Peter Weinmann whose telephone number is (703)756-5964. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, 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.
/Ryu-Sung P. Weinmann/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 January 14, 2026
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
1 Green Transportation (“Charging levels - Level 1, Level 2, DC Fast Charging, etc” < https://greentransportation.info/ev-charging/range-confidence/chap4-charging/4-charging-levels.html > Posted Online November 12, 2019)
2 Ready Steady Plug “What’s the difference between Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 EV charging?” < https://readysteadyplug.com/rsp-blog/level1-level2-level3-ev-charging > Posted online May 29, 2019
3 Open Charge Alliance (“Open Charge Point Protocol 2.1” < https://openchargealliance.org/protocols/open-charge-point-protocol/ > Posted Online Nov 12, 2018)