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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, drawn to a system for charging, in the reply filed on 4/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application. This is not found persuasive because the groups of inventions do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups 1, 2, and 3 lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of "means for transmitting electrical energy to batteries of third party vehicle wherein the means for receiving electrical energy are represented with the cable with the electrical connector, and the charging module is configured to obtain data on electrical characteristics of said vehicle batteries and to convert electrical characteristics of the current received in those required for the charge of said vehicle batteries in accordance with its electrical characteristics", this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Nor et al. (EP 0769217/US 5548200).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 “vehicle battery/ies” of claims 1, 2, and 3 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nor et al. US 5548200.
With regards to claim 1 Nor discloses, a system for charging vehicles [abstract “A method and apparatus for charging the battery of an electric vehicle”], comprising:
a charging station [fig 2 station 82] and
a vehicle [vehicle 80],
where the charging station includes means for transmitting electrical energy [wires 90 and connecter 88] to a vehicle battery [battery 84], and
the vehicle includes a charging module [charge controller 86], provided with means for receiving electrical energy and the means for transmitting electrical energy to said battery,
wherein the means for receiving electrical energy of the charging module are represented with a cable with power connector [wires 90 and connector 88], and
said charging station or charging module is configured to obtain vehicle battery electrical characteristics and to convert electrical characteristics of the current received into those required for charging the batteries of said vehicle in accordance with its electrical specifications [col 6 lines 35-39 “charging the battery by delivering charging current thereto under the control of the battery specific charging control module which is on board the vehicle. In other words, the charging control module is, in this case, battery specific” and lines 45-50 “In the event that the interrogation has determined that a personality module is present in the vehicle which at least identifies the maximum charging current and nominal charging voltage, then the battery is charged by delivering charging current thereto at the maximum charging current and nominal charging voltage”].
With regards to claim 2 Nor discloses, the system according to claim 1, wherein the charging station includes a controller configured to obtain data on vehicle battery charge level from the charge modules [col 3 line 19 “the controller section of the charging station”], and
each charging module is configured to activate a channel for building up a closed loop between the charging station and other charging module, providing an opportunity for individual charging of vehicle batteries in said system [fig 3 shows multiple vehicles with controllers/modules all connected via a bus/cable and col 11 lines 1-4 “a plurality of vehicle batteries may be charged from the single charging station 120, by distributing charging energy to any one of a plurality of switches or contactors 122, to which a plurality of electric vehicles 124 may be connected”].
With regards to claim 3 Nor discloses, the system according to claim 1, wherein the means for transmitting electrical energy to said vehicle batteries are configured with a socket corresponding to the charge module cable with said electrical connector [fig 2 connector 88 which would require a socket as claimed in order to connect with the vehicle and col 2 lines 42-44 “vehicle which shall be charged must have an appropriate and compatible power connector or receptacle”].
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nor et al. US 5548200 in view of Morgal et al. US 20100228405.
With regards to claim 4 Nor fails to disclose, the system according to claim 3, wherein the socket of said charging station includes a locking element for charging.
However, Morgal discloses, the system according to claim 3, wherein the socket of said charging station includes a locking element for charging [abstract “A locking and holding mechanism for a personal vehicle is composed of a connection device mounted to the vehicle and a receptacle mounted to a solid fixture. The receptacle is configured to directly receive and engage the connection device of the vehicle and, once received, the vehicle is locked to the receptacle held in a stable position. The connection device easily attaches a vehicle to a dock and enables a vehicle management system to charge, lock, hold in place and monitor the vehicle's presence when docked in a charge station”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the charging systems of Nor and Morgal to include a locking mechanism in order to improve user safety and prevent theft during charging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights