Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/103,063

CHARGING SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 30, 2023
Examiner
KOUSAR, SADIA
Art Unit
2859
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
69 granted / 109 resolved
-4.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
155
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
55.9%
+15.9% vs TC avg
§102
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
§112
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 109 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to claim 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of claim 3 has been withdrawn due to amendments. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Grace et al. (US 2019/0084435), herein after Grace. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (JP2017212842A) with the publication date: November 30, 2017 (attached is the human translation), Nishiyama et al. (US 2021/0013728), herein after Nishiyama, and Grace (US 2019/0084435). Regarding claim 1, Kano discloses a charging system that is configured to fit a charging connector of a charging device to a charging inlet of a vehicle to charge a battery installed in the vehicle (An electric vehicle includes a charging port for accommodating a vehicle-side connector 26 to which a charger-side connector of an external charger is connected, Abstract), the charging system comprising: a temperature detecting unit (temperature sensor 48, fig. 2) configured to detect a temperature of the charging inlet (a temperature detection means for detecting the temperature around the vehicle side connector, paragraph [0006]); Kano further discloses that the charging rate acquisition unit acquire the charging rate and the temperature detection unit acquire the temperature of the charging port and control the heating means to acquire the desired temperature of the port (claims 5 and 6). However Kano does not explicitly disclose a usage-start-time acquisition unit configured to acquire a usage start time at which a user starts using the vehicle; and a control unit configured to, when fitting the charging inlet and the charging connector to charge the battery, execute control, based on a detection result of the temperature detecting unit, to perform charging by applying, at a point in time that is immediately prior to the usage start time, a current that is greater than a current applied earlier than the point in time, when the temperature of the charging inlet is lower than a threshold value temperature that is set in advance. Nishiyama discloses a usage-start-time acquisition unit (a scheduled-time-of-use determining unit, paragraph [0010]) configured to acquire a usage start time at which a user starts using the vehicle (the scheduled-time-of-use determining unit determines that the scheduled time of use is ascertainable or inferable, paragraph [0010]); and a control unit (charging controller 33, fig. 1) configured to, when fitting the charging inlet and the charging connector to charge the battery, execute control (when an outside air temperature is equal to or lower than a predetermined temperature (e.g., a temperature at which freezing can occur), the charging controller 33 performs a special charging process that effectively uses heat generated during charging in order to avoid degradation of the charging-discharging performance of the battery 1 and freezing of the charging inlet 11 of the battery 1 and the charging connector 31 connected thereto, paragraph [0047]), based on a detection result of the temperature detecting unit (the temperature is lower than the predetermined temperature, s2, fig. 3, paragraph [0074]), to perform charging (acquire the usage start time s4, fig. 3 and perform the charging according to fig. 4 ) by applying, at a point in time that is immediately prior to the usage start time, a charging current when the temperature of the charging inlet is lower than a threshold value temperature that is set in advance (the late stage charging current value is higher than the early stage charging current as shown in fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Kano’s charging system to control the temperature of the charging inlet with the charging current applied through external power supply as taught by Nishiyama, in order to prevent the charging cable from freezing and becoming stuck in the charge port without having any additional heating system. However, Kano and Nishiyama are silent about the increased current is applied to increase the temperature at the end of the charging stage. Grace discloses a control system used to control the temperature of the electrical components by applied current. Grace discloses if the current temperature of the electrical component is equal to or less than (≤) a threshold value, the control system 60 may increase the determined charge current (I.sub.C) and charge the bus using the increased charge current. Increasing the charge current in this manner may help to heat and maintain the temperature (paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Kano’s system in view of Nishiyama to control the temperature of the charging inlet by means of the current instead of SOC as taught by Grace, in order to shortening the charging time. Regarding claim 2, Kano in view of Nishiyama discloses the charging system of claim 1. Nishiyama further discloses wherein the control unit increases the charging, from start of charging, (the early stage charging current as shown in fig. 4), when the temperature of the charging inlet is lower than the threshold value temperature set in advance (the late stage charging is performed at the step s7 after detecting the temperature is lower than the predetermined temperature at step s2, fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Kano’s charging system to control the temperature of the charging inlet with the charging current applied through external power supply as taught by Nishiyama, in order to prevent the charging cable from freezing and becoming stuck in the charge port without having any additional heating system. However, However, Kano and Nishiyama are silent about the increased current is applied to increase the temperature at the end of the charging stage. Grace discloses a control system used to control the temperature of the electrical components by applied current. Grace discloses if the current temperature of the electrical component is equal to or less than (≤) a threshold value, the control system 60 may increase the determined charge current (I.sub.C) and charge the bus using the increased charge current. Increasing the charge current in this manner may help to heat and maintain the temperature (paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Kano’s system in view of Nishiyama to control the temperature of the charging inlet by means of the current instead of SOC as taught by Grace, in order to shortening the charging time. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (JP2017212842A), Nishiyama (US 2021/0013728), and Grace (US 2019/0084435) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niwa et al. (US 2022/0234454), herein after Niwa. Regarding claim 3, Kano in view of Nishiyama and Grace discloses the system of claim 1. However, they are silent about wherein a part of the charging connector is made of a high thermal conductivity resin material. Niwa discloses the charging connector is made of a high thermal conductivity resin material (paragraph [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Kano’s system in view of Nishiyama and Grace to have the charging connector made of resin material as taught by Niwa, in order to ensure superior durability, insulation, and environmental protection. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (JP2017212842A), Nishiyama (US 2021/0013728), and Grace (US 2019/0084435) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newman et al. (US 2018/0201152), herein after Newman. Regarding claim 4, Kano in view of Nishiyama and Grace discloses the charging system of claim 1. However, they are silent about wherein the charging device includes an arm mechanism that holds the charging connector, and automatically inserts and removes the charging connector to and from the charging inlet. Newman discloses wherein the charging device includes an arm mechanism that holds the charging connector, and automatically inserts and removes the charging connector to and from the charging inlet (fig. 6 discloses the robotic arm to charge the vehicle, paragraph [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Kano’s charging system in view of Nishiyama and Grace to include the automatic robotic arm to insert and remove the cable in the charging connector of vehicle, in order to increase convenience, higher efficiency, and greater accessibility for drivers. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SADIA KOUSAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5:30pm. 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. SADIA . KOUSAR Examiner Art Unit 2859 /JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 16, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 16, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 12, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12580391
SYSTEM FOR CHARGING VEHICLE BATTERY USING MOTOR DRIVING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573859
Battery Pack, System, Operation Status Transmission Method And Program
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12556011
CHARGING PILE WITH PERMANENTLY-HORIZONTAL CHARGING BLOCK AND CHARGING DEVICE HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12549025
BATTERY CONFIGURATION FOR GAS ENGINE REPLACEMENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12515544
LIGHT PIPE APPARATUS AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+9.4%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 109 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month