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 Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 4/14/2026 in which claims 1, 2, and 9
were amended. Claim 8 was cancelled and no new claims were added. The drawing, specification, and claim objections have been overcome. Therefore, claims 1-7 and 9-11 are pending examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Ichikawa fails to disclose "a third input line connecting the second input line on the vehicle side of the EVSE to neutral at the house" and that Ichikawa is silent regarding the "neutral at the house" limitation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and believes that according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language which reads "a third input line [where Ichikawa fig 7 shows an input line that connects T32-T42 and switch 172 to plug 180 reasonably reads on the third input line] connecting the second input line on the vehicle side of the EVSE [where the second input line goes from the grid or AC source to the EVSE and reasonably reads that the second input line is on the vehicle side of the EVSE and Ichikawa reasonably shows that the second input line T32-T42 would connect to the vehicle side of the EVSE via the DC connector] to neutral at the house [where the house electrical outlet 180 has a neutral line, a hot/live line, and ground]". The "on the vehicle side of the EVSE" appears to be a positional identifier, where it would depend entirely on the individual’s point of view as to what constitutes "a vehicle side" from any other side.
Applicant also argues that "the switch between L1 and L2, as shown in Fig. 3a of Kim is not even part of the EVSE" and "claim 1 specifically requires that the third contactor is configured to "connect the first and second input lines at a house side of the EVSE.""
The examiner believes that the teaching of Kim which shows that a switch between L1 and L2 is known in the prior art, regardless of the location disclosed in Kim, and that this switch between L1 and L2 would be an obvious combination with the teachings of Ichikawa where the switch would be placed between the lines T31 and T32 (L1 and L2) and would reasonably be considered to be on "a house side of the EVSE". Also, the positional identifier "at a house side of the EVSE" depends entirely on an individual’s point of view.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa US 20200130520 in view of Kim et al. US 20230025134.
With regards to claim 1 Ichikawa discloses, an Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) [Figs 1, 3, and 7] connecting
a vehicle [Fig 1 vehicle 200] to
a house [Fig 1 power feeding facility 300 ¶36 “house”] via
a first input line [Fig 1 T11-T51 and Fig 7 T31-T41] and
a second input line [Fig 1 T12-T52 and Fig 7 T32-T42],
the first input line comprising a first contactor [fig 7 switch 151],
the second input line comprising a second contactor [fig 7 switch 152], the EVSE comprising:
an auxiliary power supply [fig 7 power supply circuit 120 which includes a secondary battery as in ¶66];
a third input line connecting the second input line on the vehicle side of the EVSE to neutral at the house [fig 7 line including switch 172, where neutral of the house corresponds to this terminal of the electrical outlet 180],
wherein the third line comprises a fourth contactor [fig 7 switch 172 where the 3rd line is neutral which is part of the standard wall outlet of a house];
wherein one or more of the first, second, third, and fourth contactors can be operated to provide bi-directional charging between the vehicle and housing [¶76 “Power conversion circuit PC2 in power conversion apparatus 100A is configured to perform bidirectional power conversion”]; and
wherein a charge coupler on the EVSE includes only two AC power pins for connecting to a charge port of the vehicle [fig 4 and 7 T31 and T32 AC power pins].
Ichikawa fails to disclose a third contactor configured to connect the first and second input lines at a house side of the EVSE, to support split phase power and provide loads from the vehicle to the house.
However, Kim discloses, a third contactor configured to connect the first and second input lines at a house side of the EVSE, to support split phase power and provide loads from the vehicle to the house [Fig 2 and 3a the switch between L1 and L2 just to the left of the input filter 260].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the charging equipment of Ichikawa and Kim to include bidirectional power in order to improve energy resilience and provide backup power.
With regards to claim 2 the combination discloses, the EVSE of claim 1, wherein when the house is powered by utility grid, vehicle is charged by setting the third contactor in a first position [Kim fig 3a where the switch between L1 and L2 is in a “first position”] to allow the second input line to be connected to the second contactor and setting the fourth contactor in an open position [Ichikawa fig 7 switch 172 open, which would allow vehicle charging via the grid].
With regards to claim 3 the combination discloses, the EVSE of claim 1, wherein the EVSE is configured to communicate with the vehicle when grid power is unavailable for the house, wherein power for the communication is derived from an onboard energy source or from the auxiliary power supply [Ichikawa discloses a battery within the EVSE that would supply power to the equipment in the event of grid failure].
With regards to claim 4 the combination discloses, the EVSE of claim 3 wherein the auxiliary power supply comprises a rechargeable lithium-ion battery [Ichikawa fig 7 power supply circuit 120 includes a secondary battery as in ¶66] and an optional AC input that connects to the first and second input lines on the vehicle [Fig 7 and ¶66 “Power supply circuit 120 may generate the driving power of controller 111 using electric power of a secondary battery (not shown) in main body portion 101, or may generate the driving power of controller 111 using electric power flowing between AC inlet 102 and DC connector 103 (more particularly, between terminals T31 and T32 and terminals T41 and T42)].
With regards to claim 7 the combination discloses, the EVSE of claim 1, wherein the EVSE is configured to close the first contactor and the fourth contactor [Ichikawa fig 7 switches 151 and 152 closed] and set the third contactor in a second position [Kim fig 3a switch between L1 and L2 set to second position] to allow the second contactor to be connected to the first contactor to power the house using a power source in the vehicle when grid power is unavailable [the combination of switches being opened/closed would allow the power from the vehicle to be utilized by the house while grid power in unavailable].
With regards to claim 9 the combination discloses, the EVSE of claim 1, wherein the charge coupler comprises 2 DC power pins [Ichikawa fig 7 DC connector 103 with DC pins T41 and T42]; and
wherein the EVSE is configured to utilizes one of the 2 DC power pins of the charge coupler to provide neutral to a split phase power application [fig 7 line including switch 172 connected to DC pin T42, where neutral of the house corresponds to this terminal of the electrical outlet 180].
Claims 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa US 20200130520 in view of Kim et al. US 20230025134 further in view of Harper et al. US 20160144728.
With regards to claim 5 Ichikawa in view of Kim fails to disclose, the EVSE of claim 3, wherein the auxiliary power supply comprises a control pilot line configured to allow the EVSE to draw power from the vehicle, wherein the control pilot line is powered by a vehicle side supply through a blocking diode.
However, Harper discloses, the EVSE of claim 3, wherein the auxiliary power supply comprises a control pilot line [fig 2 pilot driver circuit 252] configured to allow the EVSE to draw power from the vehicle,
wherein the control pilot line is powered by a vehicle side supply through a blocking diode [Fig 2 diode D1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Ichikawa in view of Kim with Harper to include the general electrical components in order to improve the safety and regulation of the electrical system.
With regards to claim 6 the combination discloses, the EVSE of claim 5, wherein the auxiliary power supply on the EVSE connects to the control pilot line through a MOSFET [Harper fig 2 switches S4/S9].
With regards to claim 10 the combination discloses, the EVSE of claim 1, wherein the auxiliary power supply comprises a battery [Harper fig 2 power source 248];
control circuits [Harper fig 2 charge circuit 244 supply circuit 246];
a battery controller configured to power up the control circuits through the battery controller [Harper fig 2 charge circuit 244 supply circuit 246].
With regards to claim 11 the combination discloses, the EVSE of claim 10 wherein an AC input connecting the auxiliary power supply to the first input line can supply power from the battery to configure the contactors of the EVSE when the utility grid is unavailable to the house [Harper fig 2 where the power supply is coupled to the AC input and ¶56 “The supply circuit 246 is also electrically coupled to the power source 248 and configured to supply electrical power from the power source 248 to the other components of the electronic circuitry 240 when the EVSE 210 is uncoupled from the first coupler 232” where uncoupled reasonably reads on the grid being unavailable].
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 Nathaniel Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights