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 .
Claim Objections
In claim 11, at line 5, replace “separating” with “separation” to correct an antecedent basis issue.
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 8 and 19 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 8 depends from claim 1 which is directed to a device for charging an EV. Claim 8, however, recites limitations of the EV (i.e., cable control device and its configuration) that render the scope indefinite. The vehicle and its subsystems are not part of the device, so its limitations do not limit the device and render the scope of claim 8 ambiguous. Applicant can amend claim 1 to be directed to a system comprising a device and a vehicle.
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 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2020/0101856 to Klausner et al. (“Klausner”) in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0274034 to Hourtane (“Hourtane”).
As to independent claim 12 and similarly recited independent claim 1, Klausner teaches: a system for charging an electrified vehicle (Fig. 1), the system comprising: a charging station (¶ 0094, Fig. 1. A vehicle is arranged above a charging contact 100. This is arranged in a shaft beneath the roadway level 101.); a (Fig. 1: 113), each (¶ 0106: Carrier head 112 carries positive terminal 123.); a second contactor provided under the ground of the charging station and configured to supply a negative direct current voltage for charging the electrified vehicle to the electrified vehicle (¶ 0106: Carrier head 112 carries negative terminal 124.); a third contactor provided under the ground of the charging station and configured to supply a ground voltage for charging the electrified vehicle to the electrified vehicle (¶ 0106: Carrier head 102 carries PE contact 125.); and a fourth contactor provided under the ground of the charging station and configured to transfer a control signal controlling a charging operation of the electrified vehicle to the electrified vehicle (¶ 0106: Carrier head 112 carries control pilot 126.); and a controller configured to provide the positive direct current voltage to the first contactor, to provide the negative direct current voltage to the second contactor, to provide the ground voltage to the third contactor, and to provide the control signal to the fourth contactor when the electrified vehicle is positioned on one of the plurality of contactor blocks (¶ 0094. The lifting mechanism 105 is controlled by a control device 5 which processes a release signal from a sensor apparatus 4 which detects the positioning of the vehicle within a reference position region relative to the charging contact unit 100. So Klausner teaches a controller that enables deployment/contacting and charging conditional on vehicle position.).
Klausner clearly discloses one subsurface charging contact unit (a single “block” equivalent), but does not explicitly describe a plurality of blocks distributed across an area and selectively energized depending on where the vehicle is positioned.
Hourtane teaches a conductive ground supply system where the power rail is subdivided into a plurality of electrically isolated segments, where a segment is connected to a voltage source through a switched controlled based on a signal relating to the position/presence of the vehicle (¶ 0008, 0009). Hourtane also describes the plurality/selection architecture (¶ 0071, 0072, 0096). Hourtane teaches each segment is connected via dedicated controlled switch to a power supply line and that a control device closes the switch when a position sensor detects the vehicle above the segment, thereby only activating only the relevant segment(s).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify Klausner’s subsurface charging contact system to include a plurality of underground contactor blocks (i.e., multiple Klausner type contact unit/blocks in a charging station area), and to selectively energize/enable the particular block corresponding to the vehicle’s detected position using Hourtane’s teachings of segmentation and position-based switching. This modification would have yielded the predictable benefits taught by Hourtane: enabling power to be applied only where the vehicle is present (improving safety and operational control) by switching the relevant segment(s) based on vehicle position/presence, as applied to Klausner’s subsurface conductive charging contacts.
Claims 13 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Klausner in view of Hourtane and in further view of US Pub. No. 2015/0214751 to Niizuma (“Nizuma”).
Klausner in view of Hourtane teach a controller using a sensor to detect vehicle positioning, but it does not teach pressure sensors or a plurality of pressure sensors underground.
Niizuma teaches pressure sensors at a parking area to detect vehicle/tire presence and to report detection signals to a controller, including provide a pressure sensor at each of a plurality of sensing regions (¶ 0020). A POSITA recognizes embedding pressure sensors underground is a obvious design choice to protect sensors from weather or debris, or to maintain a flush driving surface. See, for example, US Pub. No. 20200193722 at ¶ 0043.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify Klausner/Hourtane subsurface contact system to use Niizuma’s pressure sensors in place of, or in addition to, Klausner/Hourtane’s position sensing, because Niizuma teaches a known, reliable way to generate controller usable data indicating where a vehicle is positioned, and embedding those pressure sensors underground in parking surface is a routine design choice to protect the sensors and maintain aesthetics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are allowed.
Claims 3-8 and 14-19 are objected to for depending on 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, and further amended to overcome any applicable § 112 rejection.
Claims 3-8 and 14-19 would be allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a device or system having (1) a separation device as required by claims 3 or 14, or (2) a contactor comprising a hole as required by claims 7 or 18. Claims 4-6, 8, 15-17, and 19 depend from 3, 7, 14, or 18.
Claims 9-11 are allowed because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a method having all the combinations of limitations recited in and required by independent claim 9, particularly including, among other things, the following:
In claim 9, transmitting, by the controller of the device for charging the electrified vehicle, a chargeable signal included in a control signal to the electrified vehicle so that cables for charging the electrified vehicle are inserted into holes of the contactor blocks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner SURESH MEMULA whose telephone number is (571)272-8046, and any inquiry for a formal Applicant initiated interview must be requested via a PTOL-413A form and faxed to the Examiner's personal fax phone number: (571) 273-8046. Furthermore, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner via email (suresh.memula@uspto.gov) on the condition the communication is pursuant to and in accordance with MPEP §502.03 and §713.01. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9am-6pm. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang, can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned (i.e., central fax phone number) is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SURESH MEMULA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851