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
This office action has been issued in response to the amendment filed on December 30, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered. Rejections have been maintained where arguments were not persuasive. Also, new rejections based on the amended claims have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected, and this action is made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Amendments to claims 5, 8, 11 and 15 overcome the previous 112(b) rejections. Accordingly, the previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 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 argues the Cheng discloses a ground-based base station, not disposed in the electric vehicle.
Newly relied upon prior art Kautz (US 2016/0176299) discloses the newly amended limitations of: a recharging component (155) (Fig.2) disposed in an electric vehicle (115) (Par.15-16); and a ventilation system (170) disposed in the electric vehicle (115) (Par.21).
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, Lines 2-3; and Claim 14, Line 2-4 recite the limitation “the flow of the particles through the ventilation system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The limitation of Claim 4, Lines 2-3; and Claim 14, Line 2-4 should recite: a flow of particles through the ventilation system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “recharging component” as seen in Claims 1, 8, 10-11, 18 and 20; and “flow controlling device” as seen in Claims 4-5 and 14-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The specification states the recharging component encompasses an electric port, a charging connector and a power supply circuit (Par.12). The specification states the flow controlling device encompasses valves, actuators and a control circuit (Par.13). If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17 and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,708,000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-12, 17 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6-7, 11, 14 and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,708,000 in view of Kautz (US 2016/0176299).
Claims 1 and 11 of the conflicting patent recite all the elements claimed, except that it does not recite the recharging component disposed in the electric vehicle; and the ventilation system disposed in the electric vehicle; the ventilation system is configured to permit a flow of gas at least one of towards and away from at least one of the recharging component and the energy source.
Kautz discloses a recharging component (110) (Fig.1) disposed in an electric vehicle (115) (Par.15); a ventilation system (170) disposed in the electric vehicle (115) (Par.22); the ventilation system (170) configured to permit a flow of gas towards a recharging component (Par.34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, have had had modified Claims 1 and 11 of Patent No. 11,708,000 as described in Kautz to have had facilitated the cooling of recharging elements during charging where high temperatures are a concern (Par.34).
Instant application – 18/206,444
Conflicting patent 11,708,000
Claim 2
Unpatentable over claim 4
Claim 7
Unpatentable over claim 1
Claim 9
Unpatentable over claim 6
Claim 10
Unpatentable over claim 7
Claim 11
Unpatentable over claim 11
Claim 12
Unpatentable over claim 14
Claim 17
Unpatentable over claim 11
Claim 19
Unpatentable over claim 16
Claim 20
Unpatentable over claim 17
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,708,000 in view of in view of Kautz (US 2016/0176299) as disclosed above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (US 2020/0009975).
Claims 1 and 11 of the conflicting patent recite all the elements claimed, except that it does not recite the ventilation system is configured to direct a flow of air to a cabin of an electric vehicle.
Ryu teaches a ventilation system is configured to direct a flow of air to a cabin of an electric vehicle (2) (Par.38) (Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had had modified Claims 1 and 11 of Patent No. 11,708,000 as described in Ryu to have had blown air towards the electric vehicle to efficiently cool the vehicle’s battery being currently charged (Par.38).
Claims 5-6, 8, 14-15 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,708,000 in view of Kautz (US 2016/0176299) as disclosed above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 2020/0001735).
Claims 5-6 and 14-15: Claims 1 and 11 of the conflicting patent recite all the elements claimed, except that it does not recite wherein the ventilation system comprises a flow controlling device, wherein the flow controlling device is configured to adjust an amount of the flow of the particles through the ventilation system
Cheng teaches wherein the ventilation system (55) comprises a flow controlling device (557), wherein the flow controlling device (557) is configured to adjust an amount of the flow of the particles through the ventilation system (55) (Par.57); and adjusting a power of the ventilation system (55) (Par.57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had modified Claims 1 and 11 of Patent No. 11,708,000 as described in Cheng to have had achieved desired temperature control (Par.57).
Claims 8 and 18: Claims 1 and 11 of the conflicting patent recite all the elements claimed, except that it does not recite the recharging component comprises a port of the electric vehicle, the port communicatively connected to the energy source.
Cheng teaches wherein the recharging component (12) comprises a port of the electric vehicle (10), wherein the port is communicatively connected to the energy source (11) (Par.40) (Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had modified Claims 1 and 11 of Patent No. 11,708,000 as described in Cheng to have had the expected result of electrically connecting a power supply to provide power to the energy source (Par.40).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16 and 18-19 of copending Application No. 17/884,011 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-12 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,708,000 in view of Kautz (US 2016/0176299).
Claims 1 and 11 of the conflicting application recite all the elements claimed, except that it does not recite the recharging component disposed in the electric vehicle; and the ventilation system disposed in the electric vehicle; the ventilation system is configured to permit a flow of gas at least one of towards and away from at least one of the recharging component and the energy source.
Kautz discloses a recharging component (110) (Fig.1) disposed in an electric vehicle (115) (Par.15); a ventilation system (170) disposed in the electric vehicle (115) (Par.22); the ventilation system (170) configured to permit a flow of gas towards a recharging component (Par.34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, have had had modified Claims 1 and 11 of Patent No. 11,708,000 as described in Kautz to have had facilitated the cooling of recharging elements during charging where high temperatures are a concern (Par.34).
Claim 2
Unpatentable over claim 6
Claim 7
Unpatentable over claim 2
Claim 8
Unpatentable over claim 4
Claim 9
Unpatentable over claim 8
Claim 10
Unpatentable over claim 9
Claim 11
Unpatentable over claim 11 and 15
Claim 12
Unpatentable over claim 16
Claims 17-20
Unpatentable over claims 12, 14 and 18-19 respectively
Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Application No. 17/884,011 in view of Kautz (US 2016/0176299) as disclosed above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 2020/0001735).
Claims 3-4 and 14-15: Claims 1 and 11 of the conflicting application recite all the elements claimed, except that it does not recite wherein the ventilation system comprises a flow controlling device, wherein the flow controlling device is configured to adjust an amount of the flow of the particles through the ventilation system.
Cheng teaches wherein the ventilation system (55) comprises a flow controlling device (557), wherein the flow controlling device (557) is configured to adjust an amount of the flow of the particles through the ventilation system (55) (Par.57); and adjusting a power of the ventilation system (55) (Par.57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had modified Claims 1 and 11 of Publication No. 17/884,011 as described in Cheng to have had achieved desired temperature control (Par.57).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 11 of U.S. Application No. 17/884,011 in view of Kautz (US 2016/0176299) as disclosed above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (US 2020/0009975).
Claims 1 and 11 of the conflicting application recite all the elements claimed, except that it does not recite the ventilation system is configured to direct a flow of air to a cabin of an electric vehicle.
Ryu teaches a ventilation system is configured to direct a flow of air to a cabin of an electric vehicle (2) (Par.38) (Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had had modified Claims 1 and 11 of Publication No. 17/884,011 as described in Ryu to have had blown air towards the electric vehicle to efficiently cool the vehicle’s battery being currently charged (Par.38).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an electric vehicle” in Lines 3-4.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an electric vehicle”’ in Line 1.
It is unclear if the electric vehicle of the limitation in Claim 11, Lines 3-4 is the same electric vehicle as the one recited in the limitation of Claim 11, Line 1 or an additional electric vehicle.
The limitation of Claim 11, Lines 3-4 is interpreted as reciting: the electric vehicle.
Claims 12-20 are also rejected under 112(b) as they inherit the deficiencies of Claim 11 as identified above.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (US 2016/0176299).
Claim 1: Kautz teaches a system for recharging an electric vehicle (115) (Fig.1), the system comprising:
a recharging component (155) (Fig.2) disposed in the electric vehicle (115) (Par.15-16), wherein the recharging component (element 110 included in 155) is configured to supply power to an energy source (125) (Fig.1) of the electric vehicle (115) (Par.15);
a sensor (195) at the recharging component (155) (Fig.2) (Par.19), wherein the sensor (195) is configured to:
detect a plurality of data regarding the electric vehicle (115) (Par.22); and
generate an environment datum as a function of the plurality of data (Par.22);
a ventilation system (170) disposed in the electric vehicle (115) (Par.21), wherein the ventilation system (170) is communicatively connected to the recharging component (155) (Par.19), and wherein the ventilation system (170) is configured to permit a flow of a gas (Par.26); and
a control pilot (150), wherein the control pilot (150) is in electronic communication with the sensor (1195) (Par.19), wherein the control pilot (150) is configured to:
receive the environment datum from the sensor (195) (Par.22);
generate a ventilation requirement datum as a function of the environment datum (Par.25; Appropriate adjustments to the flow of gas are made based on the received sensor data.); and
command the ventilation system (170) to perform a ventilation process using the ventilation system (170) as a function of the ventilation requirement datum (Par.25; Adjust the flow of gas based on a predefined amount.).
The embodiment of Fig.2 of Kautz does not explicitly disclose the ventilation system is configured to permit the flow of gas at least one of towards and away from at least one of the recharging component and the energy source.
The embodiment of Fig.4 of Kautz discloses a ventilation system configured to permit a flow of gas towards a recharging component (Par.34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had permitted the flow of gas towards the recharging component of Fig.2 of Kautz to have had facilitated the cooling of recharging elements during wireless charging where high temperatures are a concern as disclosed by the embodiment of Fig.4 of Kautz (Par.34).
Claim 4: Kautz teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches the ventilation system (170) comprises a flow controlling device, wherein the flow controlling device is configured to adjust an amount of a flow of particles through the ventilation system (170) (Par.25-26).
Claim 9: Kautz teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches wherein the ventilation process is configured to improve an environment quality of the energy source (125) (Par.58, The ventilation process permits cooling during the charging process which improves the environment quality of the energy source.).
Claim 10: Kautz teaches the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches the recharging component further comprises an alarm system (Par.44-45).
Claim 11: Kautz teaches a method for recharging an electric vehicle (115) (Fig.1), the method comprising:
providing a recharging component (155) (Fig.2) of and disposed in the electric vehicle (115) (Par.15-16), wherein the recharging component (element 110 included in 155) is configured to supply power to an energy source (125) (Fig.1) of the electric vehicle (115) (Par.15);
providing a ventilation system (170) of the electric vehicle (115) (Par.21), wherein the ventilation system (170) is communicatively connected to the recharging component (155) (Par.19), and wherein the ventilation system (170) is configured to permit a flow of a gas (Par.26);
detecting, by a sensor (195), a plurality of data from the recharging component (155) (Par.22);
generating, by the sensor (195), an environment datum as a function of the plurality of data (Par.22);
receiving, at a control pilot (150) of the electric vehicle (115), the environment datum from the sensor (195) (Par.22);
generating, using the control pilot (150), a ventilation requirement datum as a function of the environment datum (Par.25; Appropriate adjustments to the flow of gas are made based on the received sensor data.); and
commanding, using the control pilot (150), the ventilation system (170) to perform a ventilation process using the ventilation system (170) as a function of the ventilation requirement datum (Par.25; Adjust the flow of gas based on a predefined amount.).
The embodiment of Fig.2 of Kautz does not explicitly disclose the ventilation system is configured to permit the flow of gas at least one of towards and away from at least one of the recharging component and the energy source.
The embodiment of Fig.4 of Kautz discloses a ventilation system configured to permit a flow of gas towards a recharging component (Par.34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had permitted the flow of gas towards the recharging component of Fig.2 of Kautz to have had facilitated the cooling of recharging elements during wireless charging where high temperatures are a concern as disclosed by the embodiment of Fig.4 of Kautz (Par.34).
Claim 14: Kautz teaches the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches adjusting, using a flow controlling device of the ventilation system (170), an amount of a flow of particles through the ventilation system (170) (Par.25-26).
Claim 19: Kautz teaches the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches improving, using the ventilation process, an environment quality of the energy source (125) (Par.58, The ventilation process permits cooling during the charging process which improves the environment quality of the energy source.).
Claim 20: Kautz teaches the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches the recharging component further comprises an alarm system (Par.44-45).
Claims 2, 5, 7, 12, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (US 2016/0176299) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 2020/0001735).
Claims 2 and 12: Kautz teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Kautz does not explicitly teach the ventilation system includes an exhaust device.
Cheng teaches a ventilation system (55) includes an exhaust device (551B) (Par.57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Cheng in the system of Kautz to have had created a heat dissipation airflow (Par.58) thereby reducing the temperature of the recharging component and protecting the system from damage.
Claims 5 and 15: Kautz teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Kautz does not explicitly teach the flow controlling device is further configured to adjust a power of the ventilation system.
Cheng teaches wherein the flow controlling device (557) is further configured to adjust a power of the ventilation system (55) (Par.57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Cheng in the system of Kautz to have had effectively controlled an amount of air flow to have had achieved desired temperature control (Par.57).
Claims 7 and 17: Kautz teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Kautz teaches a pilot display coupled to the electric vehicle (Par.45).
Kautz does not explicitly teach the pilot display is configured to display the ventilation requirement datum to a pilot.
Cheng teaches a pilot display, wherein the pilot display (display in 30) is coupled to the electric vehicle (10) (Fig.2A), wherein the pilot display is configured to display the ventilation requirement datum to a pilot (Par.52, The analysis of the sensed data is displayed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the display displaying ventilation requirement datum to a pilot of the electric vehicle in the system of Kautz to have had presented analysis results to personnel, to have had controlled the system based on the presented analysis (Par.52) as taught in Cheng thereby improving efficient operation of the system by a user.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (US 2016/0176299) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (US 2020/0009975).
Claims 3 and 13: Kautz teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Kautz does not explicitly teach wherein the ventilation system is configured to direct a flow of air to a cabin of the electric vehicle.
Ryu teaches a ventilation system is configured to direct a flow of air to a cabin of an electric vehicle (2) (Par.38) (Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Ryu in the system of Kautz to have had blown air towards the electric vehicle to efficiently cool the vehicle’s battery being currently charged (Par.38).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (US 2016/0176299) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varns et al. (US 2011/0298241).
Claims 6 and 16: Kautz teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Kautz does not explicitly teach the ventilation system is configured to direct a flow of particles away from a cabin of the electric vehicle.
Varns teaches the ventilation system (Fig.5) configured to direct a flow of particles away from a cabin of the electric vehicle (Par.36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Varns in the system of Kautz to have had directed warm air from the cabin towards the vehicle’s battery to overcome some of the efficiency issues associated with cold battery cells (Par.36).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (US 2016/0176299) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prasad et al. (US 2021/0237716).
Claims 8 and 18: Kautz teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Kautz does not explicitly teach the recharging component comprises a port of the electric vehicle, the port communicatively connected to the energy source.
Prasad teaches a recharging component comprises a port (34) (Fig.1) of an electric vehicle (10) (Par.26), the port (34) communicatively connected to an energy source (14) of the electric vehicle (10) (Par.22 and 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Prasad in the system of Kautz to have had expanded the charging capabilities of the electric vehicle by including different mechanisms and methods to receive power through that are utilized based on availability (Par.27).
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 JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859