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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied, i.e., “Provided are”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 0006 on page 2 should be amended to remove all references to the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected for containing “unlabeled generic box elements” (see 100, 110, 210, 220, 900, Fig. 1; 102, 103, 104, Fig. 6; 100, Fig. 10; 102, 103, Fig. 11; 102, 103, 104, Fig. 21; 900, 910, 912, 920, 930, 940, 950, 960, 961, 962, 970, Fig. 27; Applicant is requested to review all figures and elements, not just the ones mentioned above). Correction is required in accordance with 37 CFR 1.83 as stated below.
Further, 37 CFR 1.83 – Content of Drawing:
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
(b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
[31 FR 12923, Oct. 4, 1966; 43 FR 4015, Jan. 31, 1978; paras. (a) and (c) revised, 60 FR 20195, Apr. 25, 1995, effective June 8, 1995; para. (a) revised, 69 FR 56481, Sept. 21, 2004, effective Oct. 21, 2004; para. (a) revised, 78 FR 62368, Oct. 21, 2013].
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, 26-30, 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 specification as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 5, the “diagnostics server” is not described in the specification as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 6, the “diagnostics server” is not described in the specification as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 7, the “billing server” is not described in the specification as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 8, the “wired communication” is not described in the specification as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 18, the “more specific journey” is not described in the specification 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 specification 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 specification as originally filed and constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 24, the “AC and DC charging on the same chain” is not described in the specification 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 specification 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 specification 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 28, the recitation “the apparatuses are connected in series” is not described in the specification 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 29, the recitation “the apparatuses are connected in series” is not described in the specification 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 30, the recitation “the apparatuses are connected in parallel” is not described in the specification as originally filed and constitutes new matter. It is noted that components in a parallel connection have the same voltage, and it does not appear that the apparatuses are “connected in parallel”.
Regarding claim 32, the recitation “a plurality of apparatuses that are electrically couplable with each other in series” is not described in the specification 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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 28, and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KANAMORI (US Pub. No. 2014/0179164).
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 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, Fig. 1);
wherein each chain includes a plurality of apparatuses that are electrically couplable with each other (101, 102, 103, 104, Figs. 2 & 3) and are configured to distribute electrical power to one or more electrical vehicles (50, Fig. 3); and
wherein each of the plurality of apparatuses being 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).
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 28, KANAMORI 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 (¶ 0050-0054).
Regarding claim 30, KANAMORI discloses the plurality of apparatuses provides a network (¶ 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), each apparatus comprising: an electric vehicle output port for connection to an electric vehicle (12, Figs. 1-3); wherein a software-controlled switch (26) is configured for selectively coupling the electric vehicle output port to electrical power (¶ 0050-0054).
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), each apparatus comprising: an electric vehicle output port for connection to an electric vehicle (12, Figs. 1-3); 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 electric vehicle 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 charge 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); and
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).
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.
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) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 28, and 30-32 above, and further in view of LOWENTHAL (US Pub. No. 2011/0148356).
Regarding claim 5, KANAMORI discloses the charging system as applied to claim 3, but 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 claimed invention was made to incorporate the diagnostics server of LOWENTHAL into the charging system of KANAMORI to produce an expected result of a charging system including a diagnostics server. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prevent charge point overload and/or enhance charge point stability.
Regarding claim 7, KANAMORI discloses the charging system as applied to claim 3, but 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 claimed invention was made to incorporate the billing server of LOWENTHAL into the charging system of KANAMORI to produce an expected result of a charging system including a billing server. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable automated and secure payment processing.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMORI as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 28, and 30-32 above, and further in view of BOOT (US Pub. No. 2013/0009597).
Regarding claim 6, KANAMORI discloses the charging system as applied to claim 3, but 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 claimed invention was made to incorporate the diagnostics server of BOOT into the charging system of KANAMORI to produce an expected result of a charging system including a diagnostics server. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated 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 as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 28, and 30-32 above, and further in view of STOJANOVIC (EP3184352A1).
Regarding claim 15, KANAMORI discloses the charging system as applied to claim 12, but fails to disclose the chain is configured to provide power of different phases to two or more apparatuses.
STOJANOVIC discloses provide 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 claimed invention was made to incorporate providing power of different phases as disclosed in STOJANOVIC into the charging system of KANAMORI to produce an expected result of a charging system including providing power of different phases. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated 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 as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 28, and 30-32 above, and further in view of VAGHEFINAZARI (US Pub. No. 2016/0193932).
Regarding claim 19, KANAMORI discloses the charging system as applied to claim 12, but 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 claimed invention was made to incorporate the priority fee of VAGHEFINAZARI into the charging system of KANAMORI to produce an expected result of a charging system including a priority fee. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated 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 as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 28, and 30-32 above, and further in view of TADDEO (US Pub. No. 2013/0020993).
Regarding claim 22, KANAMORI discloses the charging system as applied to claim 1, but 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 claimed invention was made to incorporate the DC charging of TADDEO into the charging system of KANAMORI to produce an expected result of a charging system including DC charging. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide both AC and DC charging protocols to EVs (TADDEO, ¶ 0014).
Regarding claim 24, KANAMORI discloses the charging system as applied to claim 1, but 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 claimed invention was made to incorporate the AC and DC charging of TADDEO into the charging system of KANAMORI to produce an expected result of a charging system including AC and DC charging. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated 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 as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 28, and 30-32 above, and further in view of JAMIESON (US Pub. No. 2017/0197517).
Regarding claim 23, KANAMORI discloses the charging system as applied to claim 1, but 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 claimed invention was made to incorporate the wireless charging of JAMIESON into the charging system of KANAMORI to produce an expected result of a charging system with wireless charging. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated 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 as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 28, and 30-32 above, and further in view of YOU (US Pub. No. 2017/0297443).
Regarding claim 25, KANAMORI discloses the charging system as applied to claim 1, but 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 claimed invention was made to incorporate the locking mechanism of YOU into the charging system of KANAMORI to produce an expected result of a charging system including a locking mechanism. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated 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 as applied to claims 1-4, 8-14, 16-18, 20-21, 28, and 30-32 above, and further in view of BILLMAIER (US 2012/0313434).
Regarding claim 26, KANAMORI discloses the charging system as applied to claim 1, but 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 claimed invention was made to incorporate one vehicle charging while another vehicle is being charged by vehicle to vehicle charging as disclosed in BILLMAIER into the charging system of KANAMORI to produce an expected result of a charging system including one vehicle charging while another vehicle is being charged by vehicle to vehicle charging. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to alleviate driver range anxiety and/or reduce grid strain through peak demand management.
Regarding claim 27, KANAMORI discloses the charging system as applied to claim 1, but 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 claimed invention was made to incorporate one vehicle charging while another vehicle is being charged by vehicle-to-vehicle charging as disclosed in BILLMAIER into the charging system of KANAMORI to produce an expected result of a charging system including one vehicle charging while another vehicle is being charged by vehicle-to-vehicle charging. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated 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.
Regarding claim 29, KANAMORI discloses the charging system as applied to claim 1, and 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 is taken that bistable switches 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 claimed invention was made to incorporate the bistable switch into the charging system of KANAMORI to produce an expected result of a charging system including a bistable switch. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the known switching characteristics of bistable switches.
Conclusion
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, 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.
/Manuel Hernandez/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 3/17/2026
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859