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 with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 5-13-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As to the arguments directed towards Claim 8, the claim states “…to sever a physical communication…”, it does not require two switches as amended claim 1 (which Applicant’s arguments are directed towards), requires. As to the arguments directed towards claim 15 are not found to be persuasive, as the switches are opened and closed based upon timings, further seen in DeDonna paragraph 37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeDona et al. (USPUB 2015/0097526).
As to Claim 8, DeDona discloses a charge system of a vehicle comprising: a controller programmed to, responsive to detecting occurrence of a predefined condition, command switches of pilot and proximity communication lines to open to sever a physical communication link between a charge port configured to receive a plug of electric vehicle supply equipment and the controller (Paragraphs 18 and 66).
As to Claim 9, DeDona discloses the charge system of claim 8, wherein the predefined condition is a timeout or fault (Paragraph 69).
As to Claim 10, DeDona discloses the charge system of claim 8, wherein the controller is further programmed to, following a predetermined period of time beginning with opening of the switches, command the switches to close (Paragraph 69).
As to Claim 11, DeDona discloses the charge system of claim 10, wherein the controller is further programmed to, following a predetermined number of cycles in which, for each of the cycles, the switches are opened and closed, preclude the switches from being opened (Paragraphs 66-67).
As to Claim 12, DeDona disclose the charge system of claim 10, wherein the controller is further programmed to, following a predetermined number of cycles in which, for each of the cycles, the switches are opened and closed, preclude the switches from being closed (Paragraphs 66-67).
As to Claim 13, DeDona discloses the charge system of claim 8, wherein the controller is further programmed to generate an alert after the switches are opened (Paragraph 46).
As to Claim 14, DeDona discloses the charge system of claim 8, wherein the switches are relays (Paragraph 18).
As to Claim 15, DeDona discloses a method comprising: responsive to expiration of a predetermined period of time, closing a switch of a pilot communication line to reestablish a physical communication link between a charge port of a vehicle configured to receive a plug of electric vehicle supply equipment and a controller (Paragraphs 18 and 66).
As to Claim 16, DeDona discloses the method of claim 15 further comprising, responsive to detecting occurrence of a predefined condition, opening the switch (Paragraph 46).
As to Claim 17, DeDona discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the predefined condition is a timeout or fault (Paragraph 69).
As to Claim 18, Dedona discloses the method of claim 16 further comprising generating an alert after the opening (Paragraph 46).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeDona et al. in view of Nitzberg et al. (USPUB 2014/0015482).
As to Claim 1, DeDona discloses a vehicle including: a charge port configured to receive a plug of electric vehicle supply equipment; a controller (Figure 1); and pilot and proximity communication lines including switches configured to establish a physical communication link between the charge port and controller when the switches are closed and to sever the link when the switches are open (Paragraphs 18 and 66). DeDona does not expressly disclose that the pilot and proximity communication line each includes a switch to sever the link. Nitzberg discloses a pilot and proximity communication line each includes a switch to sever the link (Figure 5, Element 510, Figure 6, Element 604). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of this invention to include switches for each of the pilot and proximity line, as taught by Nitzberg, and add it to the device of DeDona, in order to allow for a disconnect and reconnect in order to protect or reset the system.
As to Claim 2, DeDona and Nitzberg disclose the vehicle of claim 1 wherein the controller is further programmed to, responsive to occurrence of a predefined condition, command the switches to open for a predefined duration, and following expiration of the predefined duration, command the switches to close (DeDona Paragraph 69).
As to Claim 3, DeDona and Nitzberg disclose the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the controller is further programmed to, following a predetermined number of cycles in which, for each of the cycles, the switches are opened and closed, preclude the switches from being opened (DeDona Paragraphs 66-67).
As to Claim 4, DeDona and Nitzberg disclose the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the controller is further programmed to, following a predetermined number of cycles in which, for each of the cycles, the switches are opened and closed, preclude the switches from being closed (DeDona Paragraph 66-67).
As to Claim 5. DeDona and Nitzberg disclose the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further programmed to generate an alert after the switches are closed (DeDona Paragraphs 71-72).
As to Claim 6, DeDona and Nitzberg disclose the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the switches are relays (DeDona Paragraph 18).
As to Claim 7, DeDona and Nitzberg disclose the vehicle of claim 1 further comprising a traction battery configured to receive electric power via the charge port during a charge operation (DeDona Figure 1).
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 ROBERT J GRANT whose telephone number is (571)270-5820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at (571)272-2312. 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.
/ROBERT GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights