Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant has claimed acronyms for several terms without their meanings. Add the following meanings, for at least the 1st instance in the claims, for:
EVSE
SWCAN
SAPRM
ISO
SLAC
Applicant has claimed the protocols of Claims 2-5, 7, 8, and 10 are charging protocols. Rather, the applicant has claimed communication protocols (it is clear that Tesla SWCAN protocol is a communication protocol, even though J1772 & ISO-15118 are ambiguous as being either communication or charging protocols). Emend to clarify the term.
Applicant has claimed “state C” but has not made it clear in the claim what it means. Clarify the claim language (e.g. Claim 4). For purposes of examination, the examiner will assume state C is any state of a system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
DC charging of Claims 2-5, 8, and 10
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the text of Fig. 1 is blurry. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underhill et al (USPGPN 20220163603; hereinafter Under) in view of Shin (USPGPN 20200282859), as evidenced by Shulz (USPGPN 20130346010), Hooker (USPGPN 20190168619), MachLee ( “Tesla Tap versus a Lectron Tesla to J1772 (48A) Adapter,” MachLee, MacheForum, Published Online Apr 14 2022, Accessed Online Jan 10 2026, https://www.macheforum.com/site/threads/ tesla-tap-versus-a-lectron-tesla-to-j1772-48a-adapter.16492/page-3 ), and Rickard ( “Hitting on All Cylinders in the Electric Automobile: How Tesla's Model 3 Changed the Game,” Jack Rickard, Published Online Apr 9 2016, Accessed Online Jan 10 2026, https://www.evtv.me/stories/hitting-on-all-cylinders-in-the-electric-automobile3893 )
Independent Claim 1, Under teaches a method for determining an operative charging protocol (¶’s [55, 57, 59-61, 64]) for an EVSE (Figs.[1-3C], 50/52, EV is element 60 in Figs.) charge session, the method (Figs. 3A-5E) comprising:
monitoring for an indication that a control pilot pin (70, 71) is in a connected state (¶’s [25-27, 32, 44-46, 52-60, see esp. 53, 54, 56-58]);
activating a PWM signal through the control pilot pin in response to detecting the connected state (¶’s [57, 58]);
initiating a charging protocol inquiry function wherein digital information is received through the control pilot pin (high level communication, ¶’s [57-60]); and
terminating the charging protocol inquiry function (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that any process will end eventually).
Under fails to explicitly teach a charging protocol inquiry function.
Shin teaches a charging protocol inquiry function (Figs. [2A, 2B, 8], esp. with s210 of Fig. 2A & Fig. 8). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by determining the type of communication protocol from a list, it serves to improve the flexibility/versatility of the system so as to best/efficiently/safely communicate and charge the battery (see evidence from Schulz ¶’s [04, 45] and Hooker (¶’s [01, 06, 18, 25, 29, 39])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Under with Shin to provide improved efficiency, flexibility, safety, and versatility.
Independent Claim 6, Under teaches a method for providing interoperable (¶’s [55, 57, 59-61, 64]) charging via a single EVSE (Figs.[1-3C], 50/52, EV is element 60 in Figs), the method (Figs.3A-5E) comprising:
detecting that an EVSE connector is in a connected state (¶’s [25-27, 32, 44-46, 52-60, see esp. 53, 54, 56-58]);
determining an operative charging protocol for an EVSE charge session (high level communication, ¶’s [57-60]);
sending digital communications through the EVSE connector (high level communication, ¶’s [57-60]).
Under fails to explicitly teach a charging protocol inquiry function.
Under is silent to determining at least one charging parameter;
beginning a charging state corresponding to the operative charging protocol; and
terminating the EVSE charge session based on the at least one charging parameter.
Shin teaches a charging protocol inquiry function (Figs. [2A, 2B, 8], esp. with s210 of Fig. 2A & Fig. 8). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by determining the type of communication protocol from a list, it serves to improve the flexibility/versatility of the system so as to best/efficiently/safely communicate and charge the battery (see evidence from Schulz ¶’s [04, 45] and Hooker (¶’s [01, 06, 18, 25, 29, 39])
Shin teaches determining at least one charging parameter (s230 of Fig. 2B, s810-s830 of Fig. 8, ¶’s [95, 97, 103, 104]);
beginning a charging state corresponding to the operative charging protocol (s240 of Fig. 2B and [s820/s830] of Fig. 8); and
terminating the EVSE charge session based on the at least one charging parameter (session stop in Fig. 8, s250 of Fig. 2B, ¶[103] has the session monitoring for SOC, which is often used for determining when to stop charging to provide improved safety, since a battery charged above a target SOC can provide safety and lifetime issues, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Under with Shin to provide improved efficiency, flexibility, lifetime, safety, and versatility.
Independent Claim 9, Under teaches an EVSE system (Figs.[1-3C], 50/52, EV is element 60 in Figs) for providing a charging session interoperable with multiple electric vehicle charging protocols (¶’s [55, 57, 59-61, 64]), the EVSE system comprising:
an EVSE control box (52, 138, see esp. Figs. 3A-3C) coupled to a power source (112),
the EVSE control box including:
a power connection assembly (140, 142),
a charge control module configured to determine and select an operative charging protocol for an EVSE charge session (138, (¶’s [25-27, 32, 44-46, 52-60, see esp. 53,54, 56-60]); and an EVSE connector (148, 114).
Under fails to explicitly teach a charging protocol inquiry function.
Shin teaches a charging protocol inquiry function (Figs. [2A, 2B, 8], esp. with s210 of Fig. 2A & Fig. 8). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by determining the type of communication protocol from a list, it serves to improve the flexibility/versatility of the system so as to best/efficiently/safely communicate and charge the battery (see evidence from Schulz ¶’s [04, 45] and Hooker (¶’s [01, 06, 18, 25, 29, 39])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Under with Shin to provide improved efficiency, flexibility, safety, and versatility.
Dependent Claim 7, Under teaches a method for determining an operative charging protocol (¶’s [55, 57, 59-61, 64]) for an EVSE (Figs.[1-3C], 50/52, EV is element 60 in Figs.) charge session, the method (Figs. 3A-5E) comprising:
monitoring for an indication that a control pilot pin (70, 71) is in a connected state (¶’s [25-27, 32, 44-46, 52-60, see esp. 53, 54, 56-58]);
activating a PWM signal through the control pilot pin in response to detecting the connected state (¶’s [57, 58]);
initiating a charging protocol inquiry function wherein digital information is received through the control pilot pin (high level communication, ¶’s [57-60]); and
terminating the charging protocol inquiry function (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that any process will end eventually).
Under fails to explicitly teach a charging protocol inquiry function.
Shin teaches a charging protocol inquiry function (Figs. [2A, 2B, 8], esp. with s210 of Fig. 2A & Fig. 8). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by determining the type of communication protocol from a list, it serves to improve the flexibility/versatility of the system so as to best/efficiently/safely communicate and charge the battery (see evidence from Schulz ¶’s [04, 45] and Hooker (¶’s [01, 06, 18, 25, 29, 39])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Under with Shin to provide improved efficiency, flexibility, safety, and versatility.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underhill et al (USPGPN 20220163603; hereinafter Under) in view of Shin (USPGPN 20200282859), further in view of Rickard ( “Hitting on All Cylinders in the Electric Automobile: How Tesla's Model 3 Changed the Game,” Jack Rickard, Published Online Apr 9 2016, Accessed Online Jan 10 2026, https://www.evtv.me/stories/hitting-on-all-cylinders-in-the-electric-automobile3893 ), as evidenced by Shulz (USPGPN 20130346010), Hooker (USPGPN 20190168619), MachLee ( “Tesla Tap versus a Lectron Tesla to J1772 (48A) Adapter,” MachLee, MacheForum, Published Online Apr 14 2022, Accessed Online Jan 10 2026, https://www.macheforum.com/site/threads/ tesla-tap-versus-a-lectron-tesla-to-j1772-48a-adapter.16492/page-3 ), and Rickard ( “Hitting on All Cylinders in the Electric Automobile: How Tesla's Model 3 Changed the Game,” Jack Rickard, Published Online Apr 9 2016, Accessed Online Jan 10 2026, https://www.evtv.me/stories/hitting-on-all-cylinders-in-the-electric-automobile3893 )
Dependent Claims 2, 8, and 10, the combination of Under and Shin teaches initiating the charging protocol inquiry function includes:
listening for digital signals through the control pilot pin (¶’s [57, 58]);
detecting whether the control pilot pin enters state C (5% of Under in ¶’s [57-60] is described to be used for determining use of HomePlug Green Phy, which is described by the applicant’s specification to be this state C; it is noted that 15118 is distinguished from HomePlug Green PHY in ¶[60]); and
determining at least one of:
J1772 operative charging protocol (¶’s [55, 57, 61, 64, esp. 57] of Under; where it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that J1772 is an analog procedure, and this system is described as the low-level signaling, while the high-level signaling is described as digital);
that the operative charging protocol is ISO-15118 in response to receiving an SAPRM requesting AC charging (¶’s [59, 60] of Under;
Shin: ¶’s [94, 100, 107, 110, 111, 113-117, 120, 126] describes this protocol, with ¶’s [120-126, esp. 121] & 820 describes SAPRM being used to determine AC decision making), or
that the operative charging protocol is a legacy DC charging protocol in response to receiving an SAPRM requesting DC charging (s830 is in response to the SAPRM of s810 in Fig. 8 for Shin, ¶’s [120-126, esp. 120]).
Under fails to explicitly teach starting a expiration timer;
that the operative charging protocol is J1772 in response to the expiration timer ending,
that the operative charging protocol is Tesla SWCAN in response to detecting state C on the control pilot pin before the expiration timer expires.
MachLee teaches starting a expiration timer (MachLee teaches that for Tesla’s, including Model 3, this timer lasts 8-10 seconds);
that the operative charging protocol is J1772 in response to the expiration timer ending,
that the operative charging protocol is Tesla SWCAN in response to detecting state C on the control pilot pin before the expiration timer expires (Machlee teaches both features, where analogous to Under, Rickard provides evidence that Teslas, including the Model 3, employ the HomePlug Green PHY protocol, see page 6). Rickard provides evidence that the Tesla network is very large, and that by being able to charge both Tesla and non-Tesla vehicles on a HomePlug network, it can improve the marketability of the electric vehicle (see page 5; MachLee demonstrates a protocol which can decide between a Tesla and a non-Tesla communication protocol to charge on a Tesla system, where Rickard demonstrates how large/well-spread the charging network of Tesla is)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Under in view of Shin with MachLee to provide improved marketability.
Dependent Claim 3, the combination of Under, Shin, and MachLee teaches listening for digital signals includes: listening for a plurality of sounding packets, calculating an average signal power of the plurality of sounding packets, and sending the average signal power via the HomePlug GreenPHY protocol over the control pilot pin (Under describes determining HomePlug GreenPhy as described above, which one of ordinary skill in the art understands would involve the steps claimed).
Dependent Claim 4, the combination of Under, Shin, and MachLee teaches the signal through the control pilot pin in response to detecting the connected state is a PWM signal with a duty cycle of 5% (Under, ¶’s [57, 58]).
Dependent Claim 5, the combination of Under, Shin, and MachLee teaches the expiration timer is a SLAC Expiration Timer configured to timeout at a designated length of time of less than 60 seconds (SLAC protocol described by ¶[60] of Under, time limit described by MachLee for Teslas to decide which type of protocol to follow for charging operations, where this limit inherently means there’s some timer, with Rickard demonstrating that Teslas use the HomePlug Green PHY described by Under).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art was determined to be the closest:
US-20110127956-A1 OR US-20130346010-A1 OR US-20130346025-A1 OR US-20140184141-A1 OR US-20140207397-A1 OR US-20160036256-A1 OR US-20160039298-A1 OR US-20160325635-A1 OR US-20190168619-A1 OR US-20190296565-A1 OR US-20200262303-A1 OR US-20200282859-A1 OR US-20210385095-A1 OR US-20220072962-A1 OR US-20220163603-A1 OR US-20220203853-A1 OR US-20220332201-A1 OR US-20230122692-A1 OR US-20240072496-A1 OR US-20240083289-A1 OR US-20240140220-A1 OR US-20240308363-A1 OR US-20240351464-A1
US-8937455-B2 OR US-9114716-B2 OR US-9787112-B2 OR US-9895986-B2 OR US-10101397-B2 OR US-10173537-B2 OR US-10787087-B2 OR US-10882415-B2 OR US-11292351-B2 OR US-11727106-B2 OR US-11802919-B2 OR US-11807128-B2 OR US-12024028-B2 OR US-12040907-B2 OR US-12157382-B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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 T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859