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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5, & 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim Limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB Citation)
Image capture device
1, 5, & 13
Camera or other type of device capable of capturing images and/or videos. (¶0034)
First locking mechanism
5-9, 13, 14, 18, & 19
Control arm with a motor and gears (¶0042)
Second locking mechanism
11 & 20
Control arm with a motor and gears (¶0042)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant appears to alternate between the usage of the term “first position” of the locking mechanism as identifying a position where the locking mechanism is preventing the charging connector from being removed (PGPUB ¶0029) and as identifying a position where the locking mechanism is allowing the charging connector to be removed (PGPUB ¶0042 & 0043). Although the applicant is their own lexicographer, the examiner respectfully suggests maintaining the “first position” to be consistently used to identify a single position of the locking mechanism for improved clarity.
The applicant’s usage of the term “second position”, as shown in PGPUB paragraphs ¶0030, 0042, & 0044, is also objected to for the same reasons as described above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sander (German Publication DE 102021102258 A1 – published Aug. 2022), in view of Mandel-Senft et al. (USPGPN 2021/0325888), Kurumizawa et al. (USPGPN 2011/0281452), and Liu (Chinese Publication CN 112498156 A – published 2021).
Regarding Claim 1, Sander (Figs.1-3) teaches an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) system comprising:
a charging connector holster (120) comprising:
a first aperture (Fig.2, aperture shown for receiving a charging connector) configured to receive a first charging connector (110) for an electric vehicle;
a locking mechanism (128 & 129) comprising a control arm (128); and
an image capture device (¶0039: station comprises a sensor a which comprises a camera);
at least one memory that stores computer-executable instructions (¶0096: control unit 140 may include memory); and
one or more processors (¶0096: control unit 140 may include a processor) configured to access the memory and execute the computer- executable instructions to:
identify a physical abnormality associated with the first charging connector, wherein the physical abnormality comprises at least one of: physical damage to the first charging connector and debris lodged in the first charging connector (¶0120: foreign objects, broken contact blades, and/or bent contact blades may be detected); and
cause to send, based on identifying the physical abnormality, a first signal to actuate the control arm of the locking mechanism from a first position to a second position, wherein the locking mechanism prevents the first charging connector from being removed from the charging connector holster while the control arm is in the second position (¶0115: locking mechanism locks the charging plug to prevent removal in the event of malfunction);
determine that the physical abnormality is no longer present (¶0115: faultless electrical function test); and
cause to send, based on the determination that the physical abnormality is no longer present, a second signal to actuate the locking mechanism from the second position to the first position, wherein the locking mechanism allows the first charging connector to be removed from the charging connector holster while in the first position (¶0115: locking device releases the charging plug after a faultless electrical function test).
Sander fails to teach the locking mechanism comprising a motor and one or more gears; and
a wiring harness including one or more connectors, wherein the one or more connectors are configured to physically contact a conductive element on a gear of the first locking mechanism only when the first locking mechanism is in a first position, wherein the one or more connectors are configured send a signal only when the first locking mechanism is in the first position.
However, Kurumizawa teaches a locking mechanism comprising a motor (Fig.6, 49) and one or more gears (Fig.6, 52 & 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Sander with Kurumizawa to use a motor and one or more gears for the construction of the locking mechanism. Doing so allows for an electrically controlled locking mechanism for rotating a lock member, i.e. control arm, horizontally between a locked and unlocked position.
Moreover, Liu (Figs.1, 3, & 4) teaches a charging connector holster (2) with a wiring harness (13, 16, & 17) including one or more connectors (17), wherein the one or more connectors are configured to physically contact a conductive element (upper rotating piece of 15) on a gear (44) of a first locking mechanism (10, 18, 19) only when the locking mechanism is in a first position (n0029: when charging gun is on the locking mechanism, the gear 44 is rotated clockwise and upper rotating piece 15 is in physical contact with copper contact 17), wherein the one or more connectors send a signal only when the first locking mechanism is in a first position (n0029: when the rotating piece 15 is in contact with copper contact 17, copper contact 17 it is a positive electrode and therefore sending current. Examiner’s note: Although the lower rotating piece 15 may rotate into physical contact with copper contact 17 to make an electrical connection, the copper contact 17 is a cathode and therefore receiving current).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Sander, in view of Kurumizawa, to include a wiring harness including one or more connectors, wherein the one or more connectors are configured to physically contact a conductive element on a gear of the first locking mechanism only when the first locking mechanism is in a first position, wherein the one or more connectors are configured send a signal only when the first locking mechanism is in the first position, and use to provide a position indication for the locking mechanism. Doing so allows the system to automatically provide an electrical signal based on the position state of a rotating gear assembly, without the need for user interaction or confirmation.
Sander, as modified, teaches the claimed invention except that the control of the locking mechanism is based on electrical impedance testing of the charging connection instead of a detection of an abnormality through an image capture device. Sander fails to explicitly teach identifying based on first image data received from the image capture device and determining based on second image data received from the image capture device.
However, Mandel-Senft teaches an identification and detection method for inspecting electric vehicle charging station equipment and determining if there is an abnormality with the equipment (¶0068-0070: the system uses a camera to collect an image of the equipment, compares the received image with a model of an expected state of the equipment, and determines maintenance is required when a failure mode is determined).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Sander with Mandel-Senft to identify an abnormality associated with the first charging connector and determine the abnormality is no longer present, based on first image data received from the image capture device. Doing so would a technician to work efficiently by reducing the amount of on-site diagnostics required of the technician, as taught by Mandel-Senft.
Regarding Claim 3, Sander, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the charging connector holster further comprises a protrusion, wherein the first charging connector further comprises a latch, wherein the latch is configured to engage with the protrusion, and wherein the locking mechanism is configured to prevent the latch from disengaging from the protrusion while in the second position.
However, Kurumizawa (Figs. 2, 3, & 12B) teaches a charging connector holster comprising a protrusion (36), a charging connector comprising a latch (33), where the latch is configured to engage with the protrusion (Fig.3), and wherein a locking mechanism (43) is configured to prevent the latch from disengaging when locked (Fig.12B; ¶0053: lock bar 43 is used to restrict movement of the lock arm 31 to the open position, preventing the detachment of 33 from 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Sander, in view of Mandel-Senft, Kurumizawa, and Liu, with Kurumizawa to include a protrusion in the charging connector holster, a latch on the charging connecter which engages with the protrusion, and a locking member which prevents the latch from disengaging from the protrusion. Doing so would prevent unauthorized removal of the charging connector, as evidenced by Kurumizawa.
Regarding Claim 5, Sander (Figs.1-3) teaches an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) system comprising:
a holster (120) comprising:
a first aperture (Fig.2, aperture shown for receiving a charging connector) configured to receive a first charging connector (110) for an electric vehicle;
a first locking mechanism (control arm-128); and
an image capture device (¶0039: station comprises a sensor a which comprises a camera);
at least one memory that stores computer-executable instructions (¶0096: control unit 140 may include memory); and
one or more processors (¶0096: control unit 140 may include a processor) configured to access the memory and execute the computer- executable instructions to:
identify a physical abnormality associated with the first charging connector, wherein the physical abnormality comprises at least one of: physical damage to the first charging connector and debris lodged in the first charging connector (¶0120: foreign objects, broken contact blades, and/or bent contact blades may be detected); and
cause to send, based on identifying the physical abnormality, a first signal to actuate the control arm of the locking mechanism from a first position to a second position, wherein the locking mechanism prevents the first charging connector from being removed from the charging connector holster while the control arm is in the second position (¶0115: locking mechanism locks the charging plug to prevent removal in the event of malfunction).
Sander fails to teach the locking mechanism comprising a motor and one or more gears (as interpreted under 112(f)); and
a wiring harness including one or more connectors, wherein the one or more connectors are configured to physically contact a conductive element on a gear of the first locking mechanism only when the first locking mechanism is in a first position, wherein the one or more connectors are configured send a signal only when the first locking mechanism is in the first position.
However, Kurumizawa teaches a locking mechanism comprising a motor (Fig.6, 49) and one or more gears (Fig.6, 52 & 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Sander with Kurumizawa to use a motor and one or more gears for the construction of the locking mechanism. Doing so allows for an electrically controlled locking mechanism for rotating a lock member, i.e. control arm, horizontally between a locked and unlocked position.
Moreover, Liu (Figs.1, 3, & 4) teaches a charging connector holster (2) with a wiring harness (13, 16, & 17) including one or more connectors (17), wherein the one or more connectors are configured to physically contact a conductive element (upper rotating piece of 15) on a gear (44) of a first locking mechanism (10, 18, 19) only when the locking mechanism is in a first position (n0029: when charging gun is on the locking mechanism, the gear 44 is rotated clockwise and upper rotating piece 15 is in physical contact with copper contact 17), wherein the one or more connectors send a signal only when the first locking mechanism is in a first position (n0029: when the rotating piece 15 is in contact with copper contact 17, copper contact 17 it is a positive electrode and therefore sending current. Examiner’s note: Although the lower rotating piece 15 may rotate into physical contact with copper contact 17 to make an electrical connection, the copper contact 17 is a cathode and therefore receiving current).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Sander, in view of Kurumizawa, to include a wiring harness including one or more connectors, wherein the one or more connectors are configured to physically contact a conductive element on a gear of the first locking mechanism only when the first locking mechanism is in a first position, wherein the one or more connectors are configured send a signal only when the first locking mechanism is in the first position, and use to provide a position indication for the locking mechanism. Doing so allows the system to automatically provide an electrical signal based on the position state of a rotating gear assembly, without the need for user interaction or confirmation.
Sander, as modified, teaches the claimed invention except that the control of the locking mechanism is based on electrical impedance testing of the charging connection instead of a detection of an abnormality through an image capture device. Sander fails to explicitly teach identifying based on first image data received from the image capture device.
However, Mandel-Senft teaches an identification and detection method for inspecting electric vehicle charging station equipment and determining if there is an abnormality with the equipment (¶0068-0070: the system uses a camera to collect an image of the equipment, compares the received image with a model of an expected state of the equipment, and determines maintenance is required when a failure mode is determined).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Sander with Mandel-Senft to identify an abnormality associated with the first charging connector and determine the abnormality is no longer present, based on first image data received from the image capture device. Doing so would a technician to work efficiently by reducing the amount of on-site diagnostics required of the technician, as taught by Mandel-Senft.
Regarding Claim 6, Sander, as modified, further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to:
receive a signal indicating a request to unlock the first charging connector from the holster (¶0079: authorization of a user); and
cause to send a second signal to actuate the first locking mechanism from the second position to the first position, wherein the first locking mechanism allows the first charging connector to be removed from the holster while in the first position (¶0079: unlocked state to be removed).
cause to send, based on the determination that the physical abnormality is no longer present, a second signal to actuate the locking mechanism from the second position to the first position, wherein the locking mechanism allows the first charging connector to be removed from the charging connector holster while in the first position (¶0115: locking device releases the charging plug after a faultless electrical function test).
Regarding Claim 8, Sander, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the charging connector holster further comprises a protrusion, wherein the first charging connector further comprises a latch, wherein the latch is configured to engage with the protrusion, and wherein the locking mechanism is configured to prevent the latch from disengaging from the protrusion while in the second position.
However, Kurumizawa (Figs. 2, 3, & 12B) teaches a charging connector holster comprising a protrusion (36), a charging connector comprising a latch (33), where the latch is configured to engage with the protrusion (Fig.3), and wherein a locking mechanism (43) is configured to prevent the latch from disengaging when locked (Fig.12B; ¶0053: lock bar 43 is used to restrict movement of the lock arm 31 to the open position, preventing the detachment of 33 from 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Sander, in view of Mandel-Senft, Kurumizawa, and Liu, with Kurumizawa to include a protrusion in the charging connector holster, a latch on the charging connecter which engages with the protrusion, and a locking member which prevents the latch from disengaging from the protrusion. Doing so would prevent unauthorized removal of the charging connector, as evidenced by Kurumizawa.
Regarding Claim 10, Sander, as modified, further teaches wherein the system further comprises a bulkhead, wherein the holster is mounted to the bulkhead (Fig.2, front facing face represented by the dashed lines is equated to a bulkhead, and screw holes shown in Fig.2 on the holster indicate the intent for it to be mounted).
Regarding Claim 11, Sander, as modified, fails to explicitly teach further comprising a second aperture configured to receive a second charging connector and a second locking mechanism.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate and provide a second holster comprising a second locking mechanism, for receiving a second charging connector, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Doing so would allow for a level of redundancy in the event one charging connector fails, and would allow for an additional vehicle to be connected without the need for a second EVSE, thus minimizing the space taken up by the installed system.
Claim(s) 2 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sander, in view of Mandel-Senft, Kurumizawa, and Liu, as applied in the rejections of claims 1 & 5 above, and further in view of Zabala et al. (USPGPN 2024/0035305 – effectively filed Jul. 2022).
Regarding Claims 2 & 7, Sander, as modified, further teaches a locking indicator (Fig.2,106), wherein the locking indicator is visible while the locking mechanism is preventing the removal of the charging connector (¶0114: display indicates inactivity of the charging station), and wherein the locking indicator is hidden while the locking mechanism is allowing removal of the charging connector (¶0114: red display is not shown when the charging station is ready for use).
Sander, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the control arm further comprises a locking indicator, wherein the charging connector holster further comprises a masking element, wherein the locking indicator is hidden behind the masking element while the locking mechanism is in the first position, and wherein the locking indicator is visible adjacent to the masking element while the locking mechanism is in the second position.
However, Zabala (Figs.1, 2A, & 2B) teaches an assembly lock including a control arm (1) comprising a lock indicator (4) which is visible when the lock is in a locked position (4 is visible when tongue 1 is extended) and hidden behind a masking element (2B) when the lock is in an unlocked position (4 is hidden behind 2B when tongue 1 is not extended).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Sander, in view of Mandel-Senft, Kurumizawa, and Liu, with Zabala to include a locking indicator with the control arm to be visible when the locking mechanism is in a position preventing removal and hidden behind a masking element when the locking mechanism is in a position allowing removal. Doing so allows for a user to more easily know if a lock is in a locked or unlocked state, as evidenced by Zabala.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sander, in view of Mandel-Senft, Kurumizawa, and Liu, as applied in the rejections of claims 11 above, and further in view of Kreischer et al. (USPGPN 2019/0251384).
Regarding Claim 12, Sander, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to:
identify, using the first image data, a first target icon located on the first charging connector; and
determine that the physical abnormality is associated with the first charging connector instead of the second charging connector based on the first target icon.
However, Kreischer teaches that an object may be identified based on a target icon (¶0023: object characterization by way of special markings or labels on the surface) to identify a connector (¶0023: identifying plugs), using image data (Abstract: camera creates image of the object to be identified).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Sander, in view of Mandel-Senft, Kurumizawa, and Liu, with Kreischer to use the image data to identify a first target icon and determine an abnormality is associated with the first charging connector instead of the second charging connector based on the first target icon. Doing so allows for improved identification of a defective object, as evidenced by Kreischer (¶0002: major challenge for the identification of an object that has been identified as defective).
Claim(s) 13, 14, 16, 18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sander, in view of Kurumizawa and Liu.
Regarding Claim 13, Sander (Figs.1-3) teaches an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) apparatus comprising:
a holster (120) configured to receive a first charging connector (110) for an electric vehicle;
a first locking mechanism (control arm-128) configured to actuate from a first position to a second position, wherein the first locking mechanism prevents the first charging connector from being removed from the holster in the second position (¶0115: locking mechanism locks the charging plug to prevent removal); and
an image capture device (¶0039: station comprises a sensor a which comprises a camera) configured to capture image data of the first charging connector (¶0039: sensor is used to detect the state of the charging plug).
Sander fails to teach the locking mechanism comprising a motor and one or more gears (as interpreted under 112(f)); and
a wiring harness including one or more connectors, wherein the one or more connectors are configured to physically contact a conductive element on a gear of the first locking mechanism only when the first locking mechanism is in a first position, wherein the one or more connectors are configured send a signal only when the first locking mechanism is in the first position.
However, Kurumizawa teaches a locking mechanism comprising a motor (Fig.6, 49) and one or more gears (Fig.6, 52 & 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Sander with Kurumizawa to use a motor and one or more gears for the construction of the locking mechanism. Doing so allows for an electrically controlled locking mechanism for rotating a lock member, i.e. control arm, horizontally between a locked and unlocked position.
Moreover, Liu (Figs.1, 3, & 4) teaches a charging connector holster (2) with a wiring harness (13, 16, & 17) including one or more connectors (17), wherein the one or more connectors are configured to physically contact a conductive element (upper rotating piece of 15) on a gear (44) of a first locking mechanism (10, 18, 19) only when the locking mechanism is in a first position (n0029: when charging gun is on the locking mechanism, the gear 44 is rotated clockwise and upper rotating piece 15 is in physical contact with copper contact 17), wherein the one or more connectors send a signal only when the first locking mechanism is in a first position (n0029: when the rotating piece 15 is in contact with copper contact 17, copper contact 17 it is a positive electrode and therefore sending current. Examiner’s note: Although the lower rotating piece 15 may rotate into physical contact with copper contact 17 to make an electrical connection, the copper contact 17 is a cathode and therefore receiving current).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Sander, in view of Kurumizawa, to include a wiring harness including one or more connectors, wherein the one or more connectors are configured to physically contact a conductive element on a gear of the first locking mechanism only when the first locking mechanism is in a first position, wherein the one or more connectors are configured send a signal only when the first locking mechanism is in the first position, and use to provide a position indication for the locking mechanism. Doing so allows the system to automatically provide an electrical signal based on the position state of a rotating gear assembly, without the need for user interaction or confirmation.
Regarding Claim 14, Sander, as modified, further teaches wherein the first locking mechanism is configured to actuate from the first position to the second position in response to identification, based on the image data, of a physical abnormality associated with the first charging connector (¶0115: locking mechanism locks the charging plug to prevent removal in the event of malfunction).
Regarding Claim 16, Sander, as modified, further teaches wherein the first locking mechanism comprises a motor, one or more gears (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above, Kurumizawa: Fig.6, 49, 52 & 53), and a control arm (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above, Sander: Fig.3, 128).
Regarding Claim 18, Sander, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the charging connector holster further comprises a protrusion, wherein the first charging connector further comprises a latch, wherein the latch is configured to engage with the protrusion, and wherein the locking mechanism is configured to prevent the latch from disengaging from the protrusion while in the second position.
However, Kurumizawa (Figs. 2, 3, & 12B) teaches a charging connector holster comprising a protrusion (36), a charging connector comprising a latch (33), where the latch is configured to engage with the protrusion (Fig.3), and wherein a locking mechanism (43) is configured to prevent the latch from disengaging when locked (Fig.12B; ¶0053: lock bar 43 is used to restrict movement of the lock arm 31 to the open position, preventing the detachment of 33 from 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Sander, in view of Kurumizawa and Liu, with Kurumizawa to include a protrusion in the charging connector holster, a latch on the charging connecter which engages with the protrusion, and a locking member which prevents the latch from disengaging from the protrusion. Doing so would prevent unauthorized removal of the charging connector, as evidenced by Kurumizawa.
Regarding Claim 20, Sander, as modified, fails to explicitly teach further comprising a second aperture configured to receive a second charging connector and a second locking mechanism.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate and provide a second holster comprising a second locking mechanism, for receiving a second charging connector, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Doing so would allow for a level of redundancy in the event one charging connector fails, and would allow for an additional vehicle to be connected without the need for a second EVSE, thus minimizing the space taken up by the installed system.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sander, in view of Kurumizawa and Liu, as applied in the rejection of claim 14 above, and further in view of Mandel-Senft,
Regarding Claim 15, Sander, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the physical abnormality is identified based on the image data of the first charging connector.
However, Mandel-Senft teaches an identification and detection method for inspecting electric vehicle charging station equipment and determining if there is an abnormality with the equipment (¶0068-0070: the system uses a camera to collect an image of the equipment, compares the received image with a model of an expected state of the equipment, and determines maintenance is required when a failure mode is determined).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Sander, in view of Kurumizawa and Liu, with Mandel-Senft to identify an abnormality associated with the first charging connector, based on first image data received from the image capture device. Doing so would a technician to work efficiently by reducing the amount of on-site diagnostics required of the technician, as taught by Mandel-Senft.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sander, in view of Kurumizawa and Liu, as applied in the rejection of claim 16 above, and further in view of Zabala.
Regarding Claims 17, Sander, as modified, further teaches a locking indicator (Fig.2,106), wherein the locking indicator is visible while the locking mechanism is preventing the removal of the charging connector (¶0114: display indicates inactivity of the charging station), and wherein the locking indicator is hidden while the locking mechanism is allowing removal of the charging connector (¶0114: red display is not shown when the charging station is ready for use).
Sander fails to explicitly teach wherein the control arm further comprises a locking indicator, wherein the charging connector holster further comprises a masking element, wherein the locking indicator is hidden behind the masking element while the locking mechanism is in the first position, and wherein the locking indicator is visible adjacent to the masking element while the locking mechanism is in the second position.
However, Zabala (Figs.1, 2A, & 2B) teaches an assembly lock including a control arm (1) comprising a lock indicator (4) which is visible when the lock is in a locked position (4 is visible when tongue 1 is extended) and hidden behind a masking element (2B) when the lock is in an unlocked position (4 is hidden behind 2B when tongue 1 is not extended).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Sander, in view of Kurumizawa and Liu, with Zabala to include a locking indicator with the control arm to be visible when the locking mechanism is in a position preventing removal and hidden behind a masking element when the locking mechanism is in a position allowing removal. Doing so allows for a user to more easily know if a lock is in a locked or unlocked state, as evidenced by Zabala.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights