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 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:
The specification paragraph numbering resets after paragraph 0026. Paragraph numbers should not be reused throughout the specification.
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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 appears to be missing the words “wherein the” prior to the recitation of “first locking mechanism” and “is” after the recitation of “first locking mechanism” in lines 1-2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 both recite limitations regarding the position of the locking arm and that both the “first position” and “second position” of the locking arm prevent “the first charging connector from being removed from the charging connector holster”. However, specification paragraphs ¶0043 & 0044 (paragraph citations provided from the PGPUB) identify the first position of the locking arm as a position which allows the charging connector to be removed from the holster and the second position of the locking arm as a position which prevents the charging connector from being removed from the holster.
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit its deficiencies.
Claims 2, 7, & 17 each recite the limitation “the locking indicator is visible while … in the first position, and … the locking indicator is hidden behind the masking element while … in the second position”. Based on the independent claims in which these claims depend from (and the interpretation afforded to the claims in light of the 112(b) rejection below), the first position of the locking mechanism is a position which allows the charging connector to be removed from the holster and the second position of the locking mechanism is a position which prevents the charging connector from being removed from the holster. However, the specification instead describes the locking indicator being visible when the locking mechanism is in a position where the charging connector is prevented from being removed from the holster, and hidden behind the masking element when the locking mechanism is in a position where the charging connector is allowed to be removed from the holster.
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 1, 6, 14 & 15 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.
Claims 1 and 6 both recite limitations regarding the position of the locking arm and that both the “first position” and “second position” of the locking arm prevent “the first charging connector from being removed from the charging connector holster”. Therefore, it is unclear how the charging cable is to be removed from the holster when both positions of the locking arm prevent the charging connector from being removed; is there an unrecited third position of the locking arm which allows the charging connector to be removed or is one of the first or second positions intended to allow removal of the charging connector?
For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets these claims to instead read as “wherein the locking mechanism allows the first charging connector to be removed from the charging connector holster while in the first position”, for claim 1, and “wherein the first locking mechanism allows the first charging connector to be removed from the charging connector holster while in the first position”, for claim 6.
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit its deficiencies.
In claim 14, the language “based on an indication of a physical abnormality associated with the first charging connector” is indefinite. It is not clear what is providing the indication, or what is meant by “based on”.
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and therefore inherits its deficiencies.
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.
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) and Kurumizawa et al. (USPGPN 2011/0281452).
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.
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.
Sander, in view of Kurumizawa, 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 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 and Kurumizawa, 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)).
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.
Sander, in view of Kurumizawa, 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 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 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 and Kurumizawa, 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 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 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 and Kurumizawa, 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 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 visible while the locking mechanism is in the first position, and wherein the locking indicator is hidden behind 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, 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.
Moreover, Sander, in view of Mandel-Senft and Zabala, teaches the claimed invention except the locking indicator is visible when the locking mechanism is in a locked state, second position, instead of visible when the locking mechanism is in an unlocked state, first position, as claimed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the locking indicator to be visible in the first position and hidden in the second position, since applicant has not disclosed that having a locking indicator visible during an unlocked state instead of a locked state solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the locking indicator visible either during an unlocked state or locked state, and hidden during the opposite state. Doing so would still provide an indication to a user of the current locked/unlocked state of the locking mechanism.
Claim(s) 4 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sander, in view of Mandel-Senft and Kurumizawa, as applied in the rejections of claims 1 & 5 above, and further in view of Töpfer et al. (WIPO Publication WO 2019/206373).
Regarding Claim 4 & 9, Sander fails to explicitly teach wherein the charging connector holster further comprises a wiring harness including one or more connectors, wherein the one or more connectors are configured to send a first signal when the locking mechanism is in the first position and a second signal when the locking mechanism is in the second position.
However, Töpfer teaches a locking device which includes a wiring harness including one or more connectors (Fig.1, wires connected to hall sensor 7), which sends a first signal when the locking mechanism is in a first position and a second signal when the locking mechanism is in a second position (Pg.4, Paras. 17 & 18: a magnet is positioned on the locking pin to be moved towards or away from the hall sensor, and the hall sensor outputs a PWM signal as a function of the magnet, indicating different signals are sent based on the position of the locking pin).
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 and Kurumizawa, with Töpfer to include a wiring harness which sends a first and second signal depending on the position of the locking mechanism. Doing so allows for a determination of the position of an element of a locking mechanism, as evidenced by Töpfer.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sander, in view of Mandel-Senft and Kurumizawa, as applied in the rejections of claims 11 above, and further in view of Kreischer et al. (USPGPN 2019/0251384).
Regarding Claim 12, Sander 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 and Kurumizawa, 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.
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)).
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.
Regarding Claim 14, Sander further teaches wherein the first locking mechanism is configured to actuate from the first position to the second position based on an indication 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 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 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, 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 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, as applied in the rejection of claim 14 above, and further in view of Mandel-Senft,
Regarding Claim 15, Sander 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, 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, as applied in the rejection of claim 16 above, and further in view of Zabala.
Regarding Claims 17, Sander 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 visible while the locking mechanism is in the first position, and wherein the locking indicator is hidden behind 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, 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.
Moreover, Sander, in view of Zabala, teaches the claimed invention except the locking indicator is visible when the locking mechanism is in a locked state, second position, instead of visible when the locking mechanism is in an unlocked state, first position, as claimed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the locking indicator to be visible in the unlocked first position and hidden in the locked second position, since applicant has not disclosed that having a locking indicator visible during an unlocked state instead of a locked state solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the locking indicator visible either during an unlocked state or locked state, and hidden during the opposite state. Doing so would still provide an indication to a user of the current locked/unlocked state of the locking mechanism.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sander, in view of Kurumizawa, as applied in the rejection of claim 13 above, and further in view of Töpfer.
Regarding Claim 19, Sander fails to explicitly teach wherein the charging connector holster further comprises a wiring harness including one or more connectors, wherein the one or more connectors are configured to send a first signal when the locking mechanism is in the first position and a second signal when the locking mechanism is in the second position.
However, Töpfer teaches a locking device which includes a wiring harness including one or more connectors (Fig.1, wires connected to hall sensor 7), which sends a first signal when the locking mechanism is in a first position and a second signal when the locking mechanism is in a second position (Pg.4, Paras. 17 & 18: a magnet is positioned on the locking pin to be moved towards or away from the hall sensor, and the hall sensor outputs a PWM signal as a function of the magnet, indicating a different signals are sent based on the position of the locking pin).
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, with Töpfer to include a wiring harness which sends a first and second signal depending on the position of the locking mechanism. Doing so allows for a determination of the position of an element of a locking mechanism, as evidenced by Töpfer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jefferies et al. (USPGPN 2016/0121747) teaches an EVSE with two charging plugs and holsters.
Tormey et al. (US Patent 8,025,526) teaches a charging connector locking system.
Gaul et al. (USPGPN 2012/0135634) teaches a system for locking a charging cable.
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