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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 5/16/23 has been considered and placed of record. The initialed copy is attached herewith.
Drawings
Replacement drawings filed 7/6/23 has been approved and made of record.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 18-20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quattrini et al. (US 2023/0117407). Limitations in bolded text below are absent from the applied reference.
Re claims 1, 13, 14 and 20, the reference discloses an electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) 100 comprising: a direct current (DC) link; and a plurality of chargers 135A, 135B coupled to the DC link, wherein at least one charger of the plurality of chargers comprises: a first DC-DC converter and a second DC-DC converter (para 18: DC outputs 135A, 135B), each of the first and second DC-DC converters having a link side coupled to the DC link and a vehicle side (one end connected to power supply and other end connected to vehicle); a first switch coupling the vehicle side of the first DC-DC converter to a first port of the at least one charger; a second switch coupling the vehicle side of the second DC-DC converter to a second port of the at least one charger (fig 1A/B; para 18); a third switch coupling the vehicle side of the first DC-DC converter to the second port of the at least one charger (fig 3; para 35). See para 69-73.
Re specific claim 13, transformer is provided as power source 105 to produce 400/480 VAC three phase.
However, the reference does not disclose a DC link wherein the plurality of chargers is connected thereto. Official notice is taken of the fact that it would simplify the EVCS by converting AC grid power into DC power before feeding to each of the charger via a dc link. Thereby saving an AC/DC converter in each of the charger. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have employed a dc link to simplify the circuitry by converting AC grid power into DC power before feeding to each of the charger; and since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 14 and 20, method steps performing structural limitations of claim 1.
Re claims 2 and 18, the reference further discloses a controller 120A/120B configured to: place the at least one charger in an independent charging mode by enabling the first and second switches (fig 1B, para 38) and by disabling the third switch, and place the at least one charger in a parallel charging mode by enabling the first and third switches, and by disabling the second switch (fig 3; para 35). Method steps of claim 18 performing structural limitations of claim 2.
Re claim 3, the reference does not disclose a fourth switch connected to the link side and the chargers. Official notice is taken of the fact that having a switch on the grid side (i.e. linked side) for connecting to the chargers would allow maintenance to depower all the chargers before service or in an emergency. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to having included a fourth switch on the link side (i.e. power grid side) to ensure no power flow into all the chargers should a fault exists in the chargers.
Re claims 5-7, the reference does not disclose the specific dc/dc converter as claimed. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any appropriate dc/dc converter including the claimed dc/dc converter since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Re claims 8-10, the reference discloses fault protection unit 765 to isolate the dc/dc converter (para 80). However, it does not specifically disclose first, second, third and fourth fault protection units coupled to different path of the circuits as claimed. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have protected different circuit path of the system to ensure all connecting points are isolated from fault and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 11 and 12, the reference is silent on the specific rating of the charging cables and having a fuse positioned as claimed. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any appropriate rating for the cables for the specific EVCS since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In addition, having the fuse, as an additional safety measure, located in a specific claimed position would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 19, 22 and 23, the reference further discloses monitoring a charging state of a battery of a vehicle connected to the second port during the independent charging mode, wherein placing the at least one charger in the parallel charging mode is performed upon determining that the battery of the vehicle is sufficiently charged (para 35-36 explains when a vehicle at the dispenser (i.e. charger) is fully charged then the dispenser would reallocate the power to be an additional power to another vehicle (fig 3)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 15-17 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The art made of record fails to disclose placing the chargers in a vehicle-to-vehicle charging mode as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Drew Dunn and he can be reached at 571.272.2312. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087