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 .
Acknowledgment is made of application #18/032,676 filed on 04/19/2023 in which claims 1-12 have been presented for examination.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of preliminary amendment filed on 04/19/2023 in which claims 1-12 are currently amended while claims 13-14 have been newly added. By this amendment, claims 1-14 are now pending in the application for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 04/19/2023 has been considered and placed of record. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitations of: “The charging device as in claim 7, wherein there a circuit protection means provided in the discharging path” should and would read for examination purpose -- The charging device as in claim 7, wherein there a circuit protection means provided in the discharging path-- The charging device as in claim 7, wherein there is a circuit protection means provided in the discharging path --.
Claim 11 recites the limitations of: “A method for the automated return a movable arm of a charging device for charging a vehicular unit of an electric vehicle in the event of a power failure,…” should and would read for examination purpose -- A method for the automated return of a movable arm of a charging device for charging a vehicular unit of an electric vehicle in the event of a power failure,…--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102018123350 A1 to Rudolfi et al., (Rudolfi)(Machine Translation) in view of Gamsjäger USPAT 10,744,881 (both cited by applicants)
Regarding claim 1 and 11: Rudolfi at least discloses and shows in Fig. 6: A charging device(1) for charging a vehicular unit of an electric vehicle(100) , comprising; a power supply means(construed as charging unit 200) for providing an electric charging current(see paragraph [0035]), and comprising a ground unit(2)(see Fig. 2) having a power delivery means(see base unit (2)), wherein the power delivery means(4) is arranged on a movable arm(see coupling arm 48 and scissor-shaped displacement arm 42 in Figs. 3-7 and [0067]) that is movable between an initial position(see holding platform 44 that is pushed into position; see [0099] and Fig. 11), in which the movable arm is located in the ground unit(2), and a coupling position(see positioning of extended arm 42), in which the power delivery means is electrically connected to the vehicular unit(3).
Rudolfi does not teach the limitations of:
“wherein an emergency power supply means is provided in the ground unit that is designed and configured to provide sufficient electrical energy to return the movable arm to its initial position in the event of a power failure”.
However, Gamsjäger discloses factual evidence of, a movable arm(construed as element 13) of a charging unit having an emergency power device(back-up battery; see col. 4, lines 31-38) which operates in the event of power failure(see col. 9, lines 34-42).
Rudolfi and Gamsjäger are vehicle charging stations analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into the charging device of Rudolfi, an emergency power supply means that is provided in the ground unit that is designed and configured to provide sufficient electrical energy to return the movable arm to its initial position in the event of a power failure, as recited, in order to operate the positioning unit safely. It is furthermore advantageous to include, an emergency power supply means that is provided in the ground unit that is designed and configured to provide sufficient electrical energy to return the movable arm to its initial position in the event of a power failure into the device of Rudolfi, if the restoring force is measured such when the displacement drive fails, as caused by a power outage, for example, that the charging contact is automatically retracted in each position of the hinged arm element due to the restoring force and in the event of a power outage or another malfunction, the displacement device can then ensure being able to automatically retract the positioning unit to a retracted position owing to an emergency power supplied from the back-up battery, as per the teachings of Gamsjäger(col. 4, lines 31-37).
Accordingly claims 1 and 11 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Rudolfi in view of Gamsjäger discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Rudolfi further discloses, wherein a control device is provided, which is designed and configured to move the movable arm (note-the charging unit 200 and base unit 2 can be integrated into a single base unit and thereby providing controlling and backing up the charging current; see [0036]) between the initial position and the coupling position(Figs. 7-8 and 11).
Regarding claim 3, Rudolfi in view of Gamsjäger discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Rudolfi further discloses, wherein the power delivery means (4,48,42,46) comprises a charging plug that is designed and configured to engage in a charging socket(construed as 40) of the vehicular unit and to provide a conductive connection between the charging plug and the charging socket(construed as 32) (note-With the help of light sensors on the coupling contact 40 it is the ground unit 2 possible coupling contact 40 align under the vehicle until the coupling contact 40 under a catch area 32 of the vehicle contact area 30 is located).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102018123350 A1 to Rudolfi et al., (Rudolfi)(Machine Translation) in view of Gamsjäger USPAT 10,744,881 (both cited by applicants) and in further view of Lei US 2015/0340907 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Rudolfi in view of Gamsjäger discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 3. However, the combination of Rudolfi and Gamsjäger fails to expressly teach the limitations of: “wherein the emergency power supply means has capacitors and resistors”.
Lei teaches factual evidence of, wherein the emergency power supply means has capacitors(C1 to C14) and resistors(R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R20, R21 and RS)(see claims 11-12 and Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the emergency power supply means of Lei into the charging device of Rudolfi as modified by Gamsjäger, wherein the emergency power supply means has capacitors and resistors, as recited, for the advantages of providing voltage stabilization and noise filtering that might be caused by ripple effect, as is well known in the art.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over DE 102018123350 A1 to Rudolfi et al., (Rudolfi)(Machine Translation) in view of Gamsjäger USPAT 10,744,881 (both cited by applicants) and in further view of Lei US 2015/0340907
Regarding claim 5, Rudolfi in view of Gamsjäger and Lei discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 4. However, the combination of Rudolfi Gamsjäger and Lei fails to expressly teach the limitations of: “wherein the emergency power supply means has supercapacitor”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the emergency power supply means of Lei into the charging device of Rudolfi as modified by Gamsjäger, wherein the emergency power supply means has supercapacitor, as recited, for the advantages of balancing, current limiting, or load simulation. Furthermore supercapacitor offers distinct advantages over traditional battery-based systems, primarily focusing on speed, longevity, and high-power delivery and its higher energy density, longer life, and high power density, making them suitable for providing short-term power as opposed to traditional capacitors.
Accordingly claim 5 would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 6-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over DE 102018123350 A1 to Rudolfi et al., (Rudolfi)(Machine Translation) in view of Gamsjäger USPAT 10,744,881 (both cited by applicants) and Lei US 2015/0340907 and in further view of JP H0775264 A to Sato
Regarding claim 6, Rudolfi in view of Gamsjäger and Lei discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 5 but fails to expressly teach, the limitations of, wherein the emergency power supply means has a charging path and a discharging path.
However, Sato teaches factual evidence of, wherein the emergency power supply means(310)(see Fig. 5 below) has a charging path(see arrow A) and a discharging path(see arrow B)(see [0009],[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the emergency power supply means of Sato into the charging device of Rudolfi as modified by Gamsjäger and Lei by having, wherein the emergency power supply means has a charging path and a discharging path, as recited, in order to provide an emergency power supply device that can effectively use all the current discharged by the battery, as per the teachings of Sato ([0009]).
Regarding claim 7, Rudolfi in view of Gamsjäger, Lei and Sato discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 6. Sato further discloses, wherein there is a diode controller(313,315)(note- the direction of the current is controlled by the discharge prevention diode 313 and the discharge diode 315; see [0003]), provided in at least one of: the charging path(see arrow A) and the discharging path(see arrow B)(see Annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Rudolfi in view of Gamsjäger, Lei and Sato discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 7. Sato further discloses, wherein there is a circuit protection means(321) provided in the discharging path(note- The failure detection circuit 320 opens the switch 321 and closes the switch 322 in response to an instruction from the computer system 301 side, disconnects the corresponding battery 111 from the discharge path; see [0003]).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102018123350 A1 to Rudolfi et al., (Rudolfi)(Machine Translation) in view of Gamsjäger USPAT 10,744,881 (both cited by applicants) and in further view of Scheel US 2021/0405720 A1
Regarding claim 12, Rudolfi in view of Gamsjäger discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 11 but fails to expressly disclose the limitations of, further comprising a step of: outputting an open-drain output signal comprising an item information, from a power delivery means, indicating that there is a power failure.
However, Scheel teaches factual evidence of, further comprising a step of: outputting an open-drain output signal comprising an item information, from a power delivery means, indicating that there is a power failure(note-the port controller 12 is configured to detect a fault condition, such as short, over-current or over-voltage, and asserts a fault; see [0021]-[0022] and [0033])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Rudolfi a modified by *, to further comprising a step of: outputting an open-drain output signal comprising an item information, from a power delivery means, indicating that there is a power failure, as recited in order to provide a real-time fault detection scheme and the ability of detecting any short within the power path of the port controller and capable of protecting noncompliant (or low voltage) downstream port without needing additional set of power switches in series with the power path, as per the teachings of Scheel
Accordingly, claim 11 would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 13-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over DE 102018123350 A1 to Rudolfi et al., (Rudolfi)(Machine Translation) in view of Gamsjäger USPAT 10,744,881 (both cited by applicants) and Lei US 2015/0340907 and in further view of JP H0775264 A to Sato
Regarding claim 13, Rudolfi in view of Gamsjäger, Lei and Sato discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 7 except for the limitations of, “wherein the diode controller is an LM74610 controller”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the diode controller of the system of Rudolfi in view of Gamsjäger, Lei and Sato to be an LM74610 controller, as recited since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore when a device or technology is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in a different one, so that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, the variation is likely obvious and a patent claim can be proved obvious by showing that the claimed combination of elements was “obvious to try,” particularly when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such that a POSITA would have had good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Accordingly claim 13 would have been obvious
Regarding claim 14, Rudolfi in view of Gamsjäger, Lei and Sato discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 8 except for the limitations of, “wherein the circuit protection is a TPS25982 controller”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the circuit protection means of the system of Rudolfi in view of Gamsjäger, Lei and Sato to be a TPS25982 controller, as recited since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore when a device or technology is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in a different one, so that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, the variation is likely obvious and a patent claim can be proved obvious by showing that the claimed combination of elements was “obvious to try,” particularly when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such that a POSITA would have had good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Accordingly claim 14 would have been obvious.
PNG
media_image1.png
683
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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, TAELOR KIM can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 January 26, 2026