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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 6-9, 12-14, 16-22 and 24-25 of copending Application No. 18/034,332 (reference application) and claim 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/034,341 (reference application) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to An electric vehicle charging control method, comprising: obtaining a first working temperature of an interior of a power connector and a second working temperature of an interior of a charging control box during charging the electric vehicle with a charging power equal to the first charging power; reducing the charging power output to the electric vehicle from the first charging power to a second charging power, when the first working temperature is greater than or equal to a first temperature threshold and less than a second temperature threshold, and the second working temperature is greater than or equal to a fourth temperature threshold and less than a fifth temperature threshold; and charging the electric vehicle with the charging power lower than or equal to the first charging power, when the first working temperature decreases to be less than or equal to the first temperature threshold.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akai et al. (US 2013/0335024) in view of Nishikawa et al. (US 2015/0028809)
Re Claims 1, 19 and 20; Akai discloses an electric vehicle charging control method, comprising: obtaining a first working temperature of an interior of a power connector and a second working temperature of an interior of a charging control box during charging the electric vehicle with a charging power equal to the first charging power;
Akai expressly discloses detecting temperature at the power plug (14a) and also detecting temperature within the charging device/controller (20b), which corresponds to the claimed power connector and charging control box respectively. Figures 2, 6, and 8, together with paragraphs [0023]–[0026] and [0066]–[0068], describe multiple temperature sensors disposed in different interior components during active charging
reducing the charging power output to the electric vehicle from the first charging power to a second charging power, when the first working temperature is greater than or equal to a first temperature threshold and less than a second temperature threshold, and
Akai teaches reducing charging current (power) when detected temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold, while allowing continued charging at a reduced level (see flowchart of Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0027], [0048], [0055]). Although Akai describes a single threshold explicitly, it further discloses a second threshold at which charging is completely stopped ([0063]). Using multiple thresholds to define ranges between reduction and cutoff is a routine design choice for thermal protection systems
charging the electric vehicle with the charging power lower than or equal to the first charging power, when the first working temperature decreases to be less than or equal to the first temperature threshold.
Akai explicitly discloses continuing or restoring charging when temperature falls below the threshold by increasing duty ratio of the pilot signal (paragraphs [0054]–[0057]). This directly corresponds to charging at a power lower than or equal to the original charging power once temperatures return to acceptable levels. The feedback loop behavior is fundamental to Akai’s system design.
Akai does not disclose the second working temperature is greater than or equal to a fourth temperature threshold and less than a fifth temperature threshold;
However, Nishikawa explicitly teaches multi-threshold thermal control, where different temperature ranges trigger different responses (e.g., derating versus shutdown), and applying those thresholds independently to different monitored components. it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine Akai’s EV charging context with the Nishikawa explicit threshold-band logic to achieve predictable, safer staged power reduction and also it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have apply separate threshold ranges for different sensed locations to avoid nuisance shutdowns while protecting hardware.
Re Claim 2; Akai discloses on the other hand, at step S4, if the temperature detected by the temperature sensor 14a exceeds the threshold value, the program advances to step S6, at which a control for steplessly reducing the duty ratio of the pilot signal is conducted to steplessly reduce the charging current. (Par 0055)
Akai does not disclose
wherein the electric vehicle is stopped from being charged when the first working temperature is continuously greater than or equal to the first temperature threshold within a predetermined time interval.
However, Nishikawa When the abnormality flag is off (N in S2), that is, a current is flowing, the control unit 20a determines whether or not the detected temperature is equal to or higher than the specified temperature T1 (S3). Then, when the detected temperature is equal to or higher than the specified temperature T1 (Y in S3), the control unit 20a sets the switching circuit to an OFF state to stop the electric conduction (S4). Then, the control unit 20a turns the abnormality flag on (S5) to return the process to S1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have stop charging then the temperature is above a threshold in order to protect the charging system and the vehicle.
Re Claim 3; Akai discloses wherein the electric vehicle is stopped from being charged when the first working temperature is greater than or equal to the second temperature threshold; or, the electric vehicle is stopped from being charged when the second working temperature is greater than or equal to the fifth temperature threshold. (Par 0063)
Re Claim 4; Akai discloses wherein the electric vehicle is stopped from being charged when the first working temperature is greater than or equal to the second temperature threshold (Par 0063) and
Akai does not disclose the second working temperature is greater than or equal to the fifth temperature threshold.
However, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have apply separate threshold ranges for different sensed locations to avoid nuisance shutdowns while protecting hardware
Re Claim 5; Akai discloses wherein charging the electric vehicle with the charging power lower than or equal to the first charging power, when the first working temperature decreases to be less than or equal to the first temperature threshold further comprises: stopping charging the electric vehicle when the second working temperature is continuously greater than or equal to the fourth temperature threshold within another predetermined time interval.
Akai teaches monitoring temperature continuously and stopping charging when unsafe conditions persist (paragraphs [0027] and [0063]). Applying a time-based persistence condition to the second working temperature is an obvious extension of the same safety logic already disclosed. A POSITA would recognize this as a routine safeguard to protect internal charging electronics
Re Claim 6; Akai discloses wherein after stopping charging the electric vehicle, the method further comprises: as discussed above.
Akai discloses a controller executing charging control logic using a microcomputer ([0037]).
Akai does not disclose
recording a reason for stopping charging the electric vehicle this time.
Recording the reason for stopping charging is a conventional software function used for diagnostics, fault tracking, and compliance logging. Once Akai teaches processor-based control, adding event logging would have been obvious to a POSITA
Re Claim 7; the combination of Akai in view of Nishikawa discloses wherein after stopping charging the electric vehicle, the method further comprises: determining the reason for stopping charging the electric vehicle this time, when the first working temperature decreases below the first temperature threshold and the second working temperature decreases below the fourth temperature threshold; and controlling the charging of the electric vehicle according to the reason for stopping charging the electric vehicle this time.
Akai discloses adaptive control based on detected temperatures, and the ’809 reference goes further by teaching reason-based decision logic after a fault clears. Combining these teachings yields the claimed behavior in a predictable manner, improving system robustness.
Re Claim 10; wherein obtaining the first working temperature of the interior of the power connector and the second working temperature of the interior of the charging control box further comprises: obtaining a first working temperature of a live wire terminal and/or a neutral wire terminal in the power connector by disposing at least one temperature detection unit; and obtaining a second working temperature of a printed circuit board and/or a printed circuit board in the charging control box by disposing at least one temperature detection unit.
Akai discloses sensors at electrical connection points and control circuitry, and the Nishikawa confirms monitoring specific terminals and PCBs as common practice. The claimed sensor placements represent obvious design choices within the disclosed systems.
Re Claim 11; Akai discloses wherein when the first working temperature is greater than or equal to the first temperature threshold and less than the second temperature threshold, and the second working temperature is less than the fourth temperature threshold, the charging power higher than the second charging power is output to the electric vehicle. (Par 0049-52)
Re Claim 12; Akai discloses wherein when the first working temperature is less than the first temperature threshold and the second working temperature is greater than or equal to the fourth temperature threshold and less than the fifth temperature threshold, the charging power higher than the second charging power is output to the electric vehicle. (Par 0049-52)
Re Claim 13; Akai discloses wherein when the first working temperature is less than the first temperature threshold and the second working temperature is less than the fourth temperature threshold, the charging power higher than the second charging power is output to the electric vehicle. (Par 0049-52)
Re Claim 14-18; Each of these claims specifies particular temperature-range combinations or relative relationships between thresholds.
Akai discloses reduction thresholds and shutdown thresholds, and the Nishikawa explicitly teaches ordering, separating, and comparing multiple thresholds to implement staged thermal responses. Each claimed relationship or operating condition is a predictable and obvious enumeration of states inherent in such a multi-threshold control system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
01/26/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836