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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-27, 29, and 31-34 are pending. Claims 28 and 30 are canceled. Claims 1 and 31-32 are amended. Claims 2-27 and 29 are original. Claims 33-34 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 regarding the objections to the drawings for not showing the features of claims 19 and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the features of claims 19 and 21 “relate to algorithmic control logic” which can not be depicted in drawings. However, it is submitted said features can be depicted, e.g., within a flow chart, or within a diagram similar to that of Figures 8-9 of the application.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 regarding the 112(a) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to arguments regarding claims 4-7, Applicant cites paragraphs 0020 and 0047 as providing support for the scheduling, billing, and diagnostics servers as claimed. Paragraph 0020 discloses “in one embodiment the smart device 119 may retrieve account data and/or statistics from a remote server 120”, and paragraph 0047 discloses “Pricing is then processed via a transactions manager 156 and any information relating to pricing is then relayed to a remote server 157 which may be cloud based”. The cited paragraphs are not sufficient to show support for the claimed servers and their respective functions.
In response to arguments regarding claim 8, Applicant cites paragraph 0020, which is silent regarding communications over a “wired communication link”, and Applicant’s comment “wired communications through which communication can occur” on page 12 of the remarks does not show where or how the specification discloses the wired communication.
In response to arguments regarding claim 18, Applicant cites paragraph 0029, which discloses “required journey range”, not a “more specific journey range”. It is maintained that the feature of supplying charge at a greater rate based on a “more specific journey range” is not explicitly disclosed.
In response to arguments regarding claim 20, while charging priority is disclosed in 0026 and 0029, the Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s assertion that priority charging inherently involves charging at a greater rate. For example, two vehicles could be charged at the same rate, but the higher priority vehicle would start charging before the other.
In response to arguments regarding claims 22 and 24, Applicant has not shown sufficient support for the claimed “DC charging” and “AC and DC charging on a same chain”, as the disclosure of “multi-phase power distribution and various charging configurations” is not the equivalent of said claimed recitations.
In response to arguments regarding claims 26 and 27, it is maintained that although paragraph 0042 discloses an apparatus routing power while performing vehicle-to-vehicle charging, it does not explicitly disclose a separate vehicle being charging or delivering energy during the vehicle-to-vehicle charging.
In response to arguments regarding claims 29, and 32, Applicant does not show support in the disclosure for the apparatuses being connected in series. The claim should be amended to recite the apparatuses are in a daisy chain configuration.
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/15/2026 with respect to independent claims 1 and 32 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.
In response to arguments that primary reference KANAMORI does not disclose the amended recitations “each apparatus comprises a plurality of ports including at least one chain port configured for coupling to another apparatus in the chain and at least one device outlet port configured to directly couple the apparatus to an electrically powered vehicle via a removable charging cable connected between the device outlet port and the electrically powered vehicle”, it is submitted that KANAMORI discloses “a plurality of ports”, including “at least one chain port” for connection to another apparatus and “at least one device outlet port” for connection to a corresponding vehicle. While KANAMORI does not disclose the “at least one device outlet port configured to directly couple the apparatus to an electrically powered vehicle via a removable charging cable connected between the device outlet port and the electrically powered vehicle”, newly found reference JEFFERIES is relied upon to teach an apparatus of a charging system having a removable charging cable as recited. It is respectfully submitted that KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system of claim 1 and the charging system of claim 32 as described in the rejection.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/17/2026. These drawings overcome the previous objection by adding descriptive text labels. However, they remain objected to because they fail to show every claimed feature as detailed below.
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 recitations of claims 19 and 21 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-8, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26-27, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the “scheduling server” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 5, the “diagnostics server” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 6, the “diagnostics server” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 7, the “billing server” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 8, the “wired communication” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 18, the “more specific journey” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 20, the recitation “supply charge to at least one electrical vehicle at a greater rate than at least one other electrical vehicle, if an owner of the at least one electrical vehicle ranks higher than an owner of the at least one other electrical vehicle in a recorded behaviour ranking system” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter. While paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0029-0030 disclose a behavior ranking system for priority or penalties, supplying “charge.. at a greater rate” based on the behavior ranking system is not disclosed.
Regarding claim 22, the “DC charging” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 24, the “AC and DC charging on the same chain” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 26, the recitation “the chain is configured such that at least one vehicle is being charged by, or delivering charge to the charge point while at least another one of the electric vehicles is being charged by vehicle to vehicle charging” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter. While the example of figure 16 discloses an apparatus routing power while providing vehicle to vehicle charging, it does not explicitly disclose “at least one vehicle is being charged by, or delivering charge to the charge point” while providing the vehicle to vehicle charging.
Regarding claim 27, the recitation “the chain is configured such that at least one vehicle is being charged by at least one charge point and/or an electrical grid, and/or is delivering energy to at least one charge point, at least one electrical load, and/or an electrical grid, while at least another one of the electric vehicles is being charged by vehicle-to-vehicle charging” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter. While the example of figure 16 discloses an apparatus routing power while providing vehicle to vehicle charging, it does not explicitly disclose “at least one vehicle is being charged by at least one charge point and/or an electrical grid, and/or is delivering energy to at least one charge point, at least one electrical load, and/or an electrical grid” while providing the vehicle to vehicle charging.
Regarding claim 29, the recitation “the apparatuses are connected in series” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter. It is noted that components in a series connection have the same current, and it does not appear that the apparatuses are “connected in series”.
Regarding claim 32, the recitation “a plurality of apparatuses that are electrically couplable with each other in series” is not described in the disclosure as originally filed and constitutes new matter. It is noted that components in a series connection have the same current, and it does not appear that the apparatuses are “connected in series”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 31-32, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI (Pub. No.: US 2014/0179164 A1; cited in previous rejection) in view of JEFFERIES (Pub. No.: US 2013/0320920 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KANAMORI discloses a charging system (abstract, ¶ 0007) comprising:
at least one charge point (40, Fig. 1; ¶ 0042: the charge cable device 10 includes a cable 11 connecting to the charge station 40);
at least one chain (comprising various devices 10, Fig. 1; Figures 2, 3, & 7 show the devices 101, 102, 103, & 104 in a chain) for distributing power from the at least one charge point (¶ 0046: the nearest charge cable device 10 from the station 40 is defined as a first charge cable device 101. The second nearest charge cable device 10 from the station 40 is defined as a second charge cable device 102. The third nearest charge cable device 10 from the station 40 is defined as a third charge cable device 103. The fourth nearest charge cable device 10 from the station 40 is defined as a fourth charge cable device 104);
wherein each chain is electrically couplable to a respective charge point (40, Figs. 1 & 7);
wherein each chain includes a plurality of apparatuses that are electrically couplable with each other (101, 102, 103, 104, Figs. 2, 3, & 7) and are configured to distribute electrical power to one or more electrical vehicles (50, Figs. 3 & 7);
wherein each of the plurality of apparatuses is controllable such that electrical power is distributed by at least one selected apparatus in each chain at a time (¶ 0080: At step S21, the portion 25 determines whether the charge gun 12 is connected to the vehicle 50. When the vehicle 50 is connected to the charge gun 12, it goes to step S22. When the vehicle 50 is not connected to the charge gun 12, it goes to step S24. At step S22, the portion 25 determines whether the charge of the vehicle 50 connected to the gun 12 is completed. When the charge is completed, it goes to step S23. When the charge is not completed, it goes to step S24. At step S23, since the charge is not completed, the portion 25 controls the first relay 26 to supply electricity to the vehicle 50. Then, the portion 25 ends the process; ¶ 0081: At step S24, since the vehicle 50 is not connected to the gun 12, or since the charge is not completed, the portion 25 determines whether the connector 13 is connected to another charge cable device 10. When the connector 13 is connected to another charge cable device 10, it goes to step S25. When the connector 13 is not connected to another charge cable device 10, the portion 25 ends the process. At step S25, the portion 25 controls the second relay 27 to supply electricity to the connector 13. Then, the portion 25 ends the process; ¶ 0082: As shown in FIG. 10, when the charge gun 12 is connected to the vehicle 50, the portion 25 prioritizes the charge of the vehicle 50, i.e., the portion 25 prioritizes the parent cable 11. When the charge is completed, the portion 25 controls to supply electricity to another cable 11. Specifically, the priority is determined based on the order of vehicles 50 connected to the station from the station side so that the charge cable device 10, which is connected to the station 40 and disposed nearer the station 40, has higher priority. Thus, the priority is determined with simple control method); and
wherein each apparatus (101, 102, 103, 104, Figs. 2, 3, & 7) comprises a plurality of ports (12A, 13A, Fig. 7) including at least one chain port (13A, Fig. 7) configured for coupling to another apparatus in the chain and at least one device outlet port (12A, Fig. 7) configured to directly couple the apparatus to an electrically powered vehicle (50, Fig. 7; ¶ 0044: charge gun 12 functions as a charge connector so that the charge gun 12 is inserted into the charge inlet 51 of the vehicle 50; ¶ 0045: connector 13 is detachable with the connector plug 14 of another charge cable device 10; ¶ 0071-0072: in the charge cable device 10A, the charge gun 12A and the connector 13A are independent bodies. As shown in FIG. 7, the charge gun 12A and the connector 13A are separately formed. The connector 13A is disposed at the middle of the cable 11. Accordingly, the connector plug 14A of another charge cable device 10A is connected to the connector 13A at the middle of the cable 11).
KANAMORI fails to disclose at least one device outlet port configured to directly couple the apparatus to an electrically powered vehicle via a removable charging cable connected between the device outlet port and the electrically powered vehicle.
JEFFERIES discloses at least one device outlet port (although a port of apparatus 102 for the connection to removable cable 104 is not depicted in Figure 1, a port is implied in paragraph 0024) configured to directly couple the apparatus (102, Fig. 1) to an electrically powered vehicle (101, Fig. 1) via a removable charging cable (104, Fig. 1) connected between the device outlet port and the electrically powered vehicle (¶ 0024: the EVSE 100 includes an EVSE control box 102, an EVSE connector (i.e., plug) 103, and a cable 104 that connects the EVSE control box 102 to the EVSE connector 103. The cable 104 may be fixedly or removably connected to the EVSE control box 102 and/or the EVSE connector 103…for various reasons (e.g., more economical, easier to fix, etc.), it may be desirable to easily remove the cable 104 from the EVSE control box 102 and/or connector 103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the removable charging cable in order to facilitate repairs by allowing the cable to be replaced without replacing the apparatus (JEFFERIES, ¶ 0024).
Regarding claim 2, KANAMORI discloses each of the plurality of apparatuses includes a controller (25, Figs. 5 & 25), at least one power outlet (13, Figs. 4 & 5), and at least one switch controlled by the controller (26, 27, Figs. 4 & 5), the controller and the at least one switch being configured to determine which of the plurality of apparatuses in each chain are configured to provide power to a respective power outlet (¶ 0050-0060).
Regarding claim 3, KANAMORI discloses at least one communication module (29, 30, Fig. 5; 64, Figs. 25 & 27), each controller being configured to receive communication from the at least one communication module (¶ 0053, 0097, 0100).
Regarding claim 4, KANAMORI discloses the at least one communication module is further configured to communicate with a scheduling server (70, Fig. 23), the scheduling server being configured to provide information to the at least one communication module related to scheduling of charging vehicles coupled to the plurality of apparatuses (¶ 0115-0120).
Regarding claim 8, KANAMORI discloses the at least one communication module is configured to communicate with electrical vehicles over at least one of a wired communication link, a wireless communication link; and a Bluetooth link (¶ 0053).
Regarding claim 9, KANAMORI discloses each of the plurality of apparatuses in a chain of the at least one chain is configured to pass through electrical power when another one of the plurality of apparatuses in the chain is providing electrical power to an electrical vehicle (¶ 0050, 0079-0082).
Regarding claim 10, KANAMORI discloses the charging system being configured for extending one or more charge points to multiple electrical vehicles (¶ 0007-0010, 0045-0046).
Regarding claim 11, KANAMORI discloses the plurality of apparatuses are connected in a peer to peer manner (¶ 0007-0010, 0045-0046).
Regarding claim 12, KANAMORI discloses at least one apparatus in a chain of the at least one chain is activated when another one of the plurality of apparatuses is connected thereto (¶ 0050, 0079-0082).
Regarding claim 13, KANAMORI discloses the charging system is configured such that when an electrical vehicle is connected to a particular apparatus, charging of the electrical vehicle begins (¶ 0057-0060).
Regarding claim 14, KANAMORI discloses each chain of the at least one chain is configured to charge at least one electrical vehicle before at least another electrical vehicle is charged (¶ 0050, 0079-0082).
Regarding claim 16, KANAMORI discloses the chain is configured to supply an equal charge to two or more apparatuses (¶ 0114).
Regarding claim 17, KANAMORI discloses the chain is configured to supply an equal charge to two or more electrical vehicles (¶ 0114).
Regarding claim 18, KANAMORI discloses the chain is configured to supply charge to at least one electrical vehicle at a greater rate than at least one other electrical vehicle, if the at least one electrical vehicle has a lower battery level and/or more specific journey range compared to the at least one other electrical vehicle (¶ 0109).
Regarding claim 20, KANAMORI discloses the charging system being configured to supply charge to at least one electrical vehicle at a greater rate than at least one other electrical vehicle, if an owner of the at least one electrical vehicle ranks higher than an owner of the at least one other electrical vehicle in a recorded behaviour ranking system (¶ 0106, 0117).
Regarding claim 21, KANAMORI discloses the charging system being configured to supply charge to at least one electrical vehicle at a greater rate than at least one other electrical vehicle, if an owner of the at least one electrical vehicle ranks higher than an owner of the at least one other electrical vehicle in a predetermined metric (¶ 0106, 0117).
Regarding claim 31, KANAMORI discloses the plurality of apparatuses provides a network of apparatuses (¶ 0097), wherein the apparatuses are connected in parallel (the apparatuses as shown in Fig. 4 have their power lines 21 connected in parallel to a charge point and are therefore “connected in parallel” within the broadest reasonable interpretation); wherein at least one of the apparatuses has an apparatus output port that is configured for connection to another one of the apparatuses (13); and wherein a software-controlled switch (26) is configured for selectively coupling the at least one device output port to electrical power (¶ 0050-0054).
Regarding claim 32, KANAMORI discloses a charging system (abstract, ¶ 0007) comprising:
at least one charge point (40, Fig. 1; ¶ 0042: the charge cable device 10 includes a cable 11 connecting to the charge station 40);
at least one chain (comprising various devices 10, Fig. 1; Figures 2 & 3 show the devices 101, 102, 103, & 104 in a chain) for distributing power from the at least one charging point (¶ 0046: the nearest charge cable device 10 from the station 40 is defined as a first charge cable device 101. The second nearest charge cable device 10 from the station 40 is defined as a second charge cable device 102. The third nearest charge cable device 10 from the station 40 is defined as a third charge cable device 103. The fourth nearest charge cable device 10 from the station 40 is defined as a fourth charge cable device 104);
wherein each chain is electrically couplable to a respective charging point (40, Fig. 1);
wherein each chain includes a plurality of apparatuses that are electrically couplable with each other (101, 102, 103, 104, Figs. 2 & 3) in series (the apparatuses as shown in Fig. 3 are connected one after another in a daisy chain manner and are thus “connected in series” within the broadest reasonable interpretation) and are configured to distribute electrical power to one or more electrical vehicles (50, Fig. 3);
wherein each of the plurality of apparatuses are controllable such that electrical power is distributed by only one apparatus in the chain at a time (¶ 0080: At step S21, the portion 25 determines whether the charge gun 12 is connected to the vehicle 50. When the vehicle 50 is connected to the charge gun 12, it goes to step S22. When the vehicle 50 is not connected to the charge gun 12, it goes to step S24. At step S22, the portion 25 determines whether the charge of the vehicle 50 connected to the gun 12 is completed. When the charge is completed, it goes to step S23. When the charge is not completed, it goes to step S24. At step S23, since the charge is not completed, the portion 25 controls the first relay 26 to supply electricity to the vehicle 50. Then, the portion 25 ends the process; ¶ 0081: At step S24, since the vehicle 50 is not connected to the gun 12, or since the charge is not completed, the portion 25 determines whether the connector 13 is connected to another charge cable device 10. When the connector 13 is connected to another charge cable device 10, it goes to step S25. When the connector 13 is not connected to another charge cable device 10, the portion 25 ends the process. At step S25, the portion 25 controls the second relay 27 to supply electricity to the connector 13. Then, the portion 25 ends the process; ¶ 0082: As shown in FIG. 10, when the charge gun 12 is connected to the vehicle 50, the portion 25 prioritizes the charge of the vehicle 50, i.e., the portion 25 prioritizes the parent cable 11. When the charge is completed, the portion 25 controls to supply electricity to another cable 11. Specifically, the priority is determined based on the order of vehicles 50 connected to the station from the station side so that the charge cable device 10, which is connected to the station 40 and disposed nearer the station 40, has higher priority. Thus, the priority is determined with simple control method); and
wherein each apparatus (101, 102, 103, 104, Figs. 2, 3, & 7) comprises a plurality of ports (12A, 13A, Fig. 7) including at least one chain port (13A, Fig. 7) configured for coupling to another apparatus in the chain and at least one device outlet port (12A, Fig. 7) configured to directly couple the apparatus to an electrically powered vehicle (50, Fig. 7; ¶ 0044: charge gun 12 functions as a charge connector so that the charge gun 12 is inserted into the charge inlet 51 of the vehicle 50; ¶ 0045: connector 13 is detachable with the connector plug 14 of another charge cable device 10; ¶ 0071-0072: in the charge cable device 10A, the charge gun 12A and the connector 13A are independent bodies. As shown in FIG. 7, the charge gun 12A and the connector 13A are separately formed. The connector 13A is disposed at the middle of the cable 11. Accordingly, the connector plug 14A of another charge cable device 10A is connected to the connector 13A at the middle of the cable 11).
KANAMORI fails to disclose at least one device outlet port configured to directly couple the apparatus to an electrically powered vehicle via a removable charging cable connected between the device outlet port and the electrically powered vehicle.
JEFFERIES discloses at least one device outlet port (although a port of apparatus 102 for the connection to removable cable 104 is not depicted in Figure 1, a port is implied in paragraph 0024) configured to directly couple the apparatus (102, Fig. 1) to an electrically powered vehicle (101, Fig. 1) via a removable charging cable (104, Fig. 1) connected between the device outlet port and the electrically powered vehicle (¶ 0024: the EVSE 100 includes an EVSE control box 102, an EVSE connector (i.e., plug) 103, and a cable 104 that connects the EVSE control box 102 to the EVSE connector 103. The cable 104 may be fixedly or removably connected to the EVSE control box 102 and/or the EVSE connector 103…for various reasons (e.g., more economical, easier to fix, etc.), it may be desirable to easily remove the cable 104 from the EVSE control box 102 and/or connector 103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the removable charging cable in order to facilitate repairs by allowing the cable to be replaced without replacing the apparatus (JEFFERIES, ¶ 0024).
Regarding claim 34, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1, but fails to teach the at least one device outlet port comprises a socket on the apparatus, and wherein the charging cable is removably connectable to the socket at one end and to the electrically powered vehicle at another end.
Official notice is taken that sockets were an old and known expedient in the art at the time of the invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the socket in order to allow for replacement and/or movement of the charging cable.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI in view of JEFFERIES as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 31-32, and 34 above, and further in view of LOWENTHAL (US Pub. No. 2011/0148356; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 5, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 3, but KANAMORI fails to disclose the at least one communication module is further configured to communicate with a diagnostics server, the diagnostics server being configured to provide information to the at least one communication module related to diagnostics of the at least one charge point.
LOWENTHAL discloses the at least one communication module is further configured to communicate with a diagnostics server, the diagnostics server being configured to provide information to the at least one communication module related to diagnostics of the at least one charge point (¶ 0025, 0069, claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the diagnostics server in order to prevent charge point overload and/or enhance charge point stability.
Regarding claim 7, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 3, but KANAMORI fails to disclose the at least one communication module is further configured to communicate with a billing server, the billing server being configured to provide information to the at least one communication module related to billing for power provided to electrical vehicles from the plurality of apparatuses.
LOWENTHAL discloses the at least one communication module is further configured to communicate with a billing server, the billing server being configured to provide information to the at least one communication module related to billing for power provided to electrical vehicles from the plurality of apparatuses (¶ 0043-0044, 0049, 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the billing server in order to enable automated and secure payment processing.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI in view of JEFFERIES as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 31-32, and 34 above, and further in view of BOOT (US Pub. No. 2013/0009597; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 6, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 3, but KANAMORI fails to disclose the at least one communication module is further configured to communicate with a diagnostics server, the diagnostics server being configured to provide information to the at least one communication module related to diagnostics of an electrical vehicle receiving power from one of the plurality of apparatuses.
BOOT discloses the at least one communication module is further configured to communicate with a diagnostics server, the diagnostics server being configured to provide information to the at least one communication module related to diagnostics of an electrical vehicle receiving power from one of the plurality of apparatuses (¶ 0020-0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the diagnostics server in order to authenticate ownership of the electric vehicle before delivering power to the electric vehicle (BOOT, ¶ 0004).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI in view of JEFFERIES as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 31-32, and 34 above, and further in view of STOJANOVIC (EP3184352A1; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 15, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 12, but KANAMORI fails to disclose the chain is configured to provide power of different phases to two or more apparatuses.
STOJANOVIC discloses [providing] power of different phases to two or more apparatuses (¶ 0016, 0019). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the provision of power of different phases as disclosed in STOJANOVIC to the chain of KANAMORI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include providing power of different phases in order to provide optimal load balance and use of available power (STOJANOVIC, ¶ 0006-0008).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI in view of JEFFERIES as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 31-32, and 34 above, and further in view of VAGHEFINAZARI (US Pub. No. 2016/0193932; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 19, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 12, but KANAMORI fails to disclose the charging system being configured to supply charge to at least one electrical vehicle at a greater rate than at least one other electrical vehicle, if an owner of the at least one electrical vehicle has paid a priority fee which an owner of the at least one other electrical vehicle has not paid.
VAGHEFINAZARI discloses the charging system being configured to supply charge to at least one electrical vehicle at a greater rate than at least one other electrical vehicle, if an owner of the at least one electrical vehicle has paid a priority fee which an owner of the at least one other electrical vehicle has not paid (¶ 0255).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the priority fee in order to manage high demand and/or provide faster service to user with urgent needs.
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI in view of JEFFERIES as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 31-32, and 34 above, and further in view of TADDEO (US Pub. No. 2013/0020993; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 22, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1, but KANAMORI fails to disclose the charging system is configured for DC charging.
TADDEO discloses the charging system is configured for DC charging (¶ 0011, 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the DC charging in order to provide both AC and DC charging protocols to EVs (TADDEO, ¶ 0014).
Regarding claim 24, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1, but KANAMORI fails to disclose the charging system is configured for AC and DC charging on a same chain of the at least one chain.
TADDEO discloses [an apparatus] configured for AC and DC charging (¶ 0011, 0027). Including the AC and DC charging functionality of TADDEO for each of the apparatuses of the at least one chain of KANAMORI would provide the charging system is configured for AC and DC charging on a same chain of the at least one chain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the AC and DC charging in order to provide both AC and DC charging protocols to EVs (TADDEO, ¶ 0014).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI in view of JEFFERIES as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 31-32, and 34 above, and further in view of JAMIESON (US Pub. No. 2017/0197517; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 23, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1, but KANAMORI fails to disclose the charging system is configured for wireless charging.
JAMIESON discloses the charging system is configured for wireless charging (¶ 0014-0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the wireless charging in order to provide increased utility by allowing for the charging of a wider variety of electric vehicles (JAMIESON, ¶ 0004).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI in view of JEFFERIES as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 31-32, and 34 above, and further in view of YOU (US Pub. No. 2017/0297443; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 25, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1, but KANAMORI fails to disclose each apparatus comprises a locking mechanism; wherein the locking mechanism is configured to keep an electric vehicle locked to the respective apparatus even when a charging session has ended and power is disconnected from the electric vehicle.
YOU discloses [the charging system] comprises a locking mechanism; wherein the locking mechanism is configured to keep an electric vehicle locked to the respective apparatus even when a charging session has ended and power is disconnected from the electric vehicle (¶ 0056). Providing the locking mechanism of YOU as part of each apparatus would not provide new or unexpected results, and constitutes an obvious rearrangement of parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the locking mechanism in order to prevent charge cable theft (YOU, ¶ 0004-0005).
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI in view of JEFFERIES as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 31-32, and 34 above, and further in view of BILLMAIER (US 2012/0313434; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 26, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1, but KANAMORI fails to disclose the chain is configured such that at least one vehicle is being charged by, or delivering charge to the charge point while at least another one of the electric vehicles is being charged by vehicle to vehicle charging.
BILLMAIER discloses [the charging system] is configured such that at least one vehicle is being charged by, or delivering charge to the charge point while at least another one of the electric vehicles is being charged by vehicle to vehicle charging (¶ 0032-0036). It would be obvious to apply the teaching of BILLMAIER of one vehicle charging while another vehicle participates in vehicle to vehicle charging to the chain of KANAMORI. Assuming arguendo that BILLMAIER does not explicitly disclose the simultaneous operation of charging and vehicle to vehicle charging, it would nonetheless be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such functionality, as it represents a predictable modification of known charging techniques to yield expected results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include one vehicle charging while another vehicle is being charged by vehicle to vehicle charging in order to alleviate driver range anxiety and/or reduce grid strain through peak demand management.
Regarding claim 27, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1, but KANAMORI fails to disclose the chain is configured such that at least one vehicle is being charged by at least one charge point and/or an electrical grid, and/or is delivering energy to at least one charge point, at least one electrical load, and/or an electrical grid, while at least another one of the electric vehicles is being charged by vehicle-to-vehicle charging.
BILLMAIER discloses [the charging system] is configured such that at least one vehicle is being charged by at least one charge point and/or an electrical grid, and/or is delivering energy to at least one charge point, at least one electrical load, and/or an electrical grid, while at least another one of the electric vehicles is being charged by vehicle-to-vehicle charging (¶ 0032-0036). It would be obvious to apply the teaching of BILLMAIER of one vehicle charging while another vehicle participates in vehicle-to-vehicle charging to the chain of KANAMORI. Assuming arguendo that BILLMAIER does not explicitly disclose the simultaneous operation of charging and vehicle-to-vehicle charging, it would nonetheless be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such functionality, as it represents a predictable modification of known charging techniques to yield expected results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include one vehicle charging while another vehicle is being charged by vehicle-to-vehicle charging in order to alleviate driver range anxiety and/or reduce grid strain through peak demand management.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI in view of JEFFERIES.
Regarding claim 29, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1, and KANAMORI further discloses the plurality of apparatuses provides a network (¶ 0097), wherein the apparatuses are connected in series (the apparatuses as shown in Fig. 3 are connected one after another in a daisy chain manner and are thus “connected in series” within the broadest reasonable interpretation), each apparatus comprising: an electric vehicle output port for connection to an electric vehicle (12, Figs. 1-3); an apparatus output port for connection to another one of the apparatuses (13); and an input port for connection from another one of the apparatuses or an electric vehicle charging device (14; ¶ 0042-0045); wherein a software controlled switch (26) is configured for selectively coupling the electric vehicle output port to electrical power, or the apparatus output port of another apparatus (¶ 0050-0054).
KANAMORI fails to disclose the switch is a bistable switch.
Official notice was taken that bistable switches were an old and known expedient in the art, and these features are taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the bistable switch in order to utilize the known switching characteristics of bistable switches.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI in view of JEFFERIES as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 31-32, and 34 above, and further in view of UENO (Pub. No.: US 2011/0149455 A1).
Regarding claim 33, KANAMORI as modified by JEFFERIES teaches the charging system as applied to claim 1, but fails to teach each apparatus comprises a plurality of device outlet ports configured to couple the apparatus to a plurality of charging cables connecting the apparatus to a plurality of electrically powered vehicles.
UENO discloses each apparatus comprises a plurality of device outlet ports configured to couple the apparatus to a plurality of charging cables connecting the apparatus to a plurality of electrically powered vehicles (as shown in Fig. 6 and explained in ¶ 0067-0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the plurality of device outlet ports in order to facilitate the provision of electrical power to multiple vehicles from a single apparatus.
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 MANUEL HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a-5p ET.
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.
/Manuel Hernandez/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 9/9/2026
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights