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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeBoer et al (US 2013/0020990).
Re Claims 1, 10 and 19; DeBoer discloses a charging apparatus for a vehicle, the method and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program recorded thereon the charging apparatus comprising: (Fig. 5D)
a display unit (469, 586-7) displaying a charging state and a fault code for a cause of a charging failure; (Par 0089)
a storage unit storing a program for controlling the display unit when a failure is detected during a charging operation; (Par 0087) and
a controller controlling the charging operation and controlling the display unit to display a fault code when a failure is detected during the charging operation. (Par 0087)
Re Claims 2 and 11; DeBoer discloses wherein the display unit includes one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs). (Par 0083)
Re Claims 3 and 12; DeBoer discloses wherein the controller controls ON/OFF switching of each of the one or more LEDs according to the fault code. (Fig .5D)
Re Claims 4 and 13; DeBoer discloses wherein the controller controls the one or more LEDs, which corresponds to a magnitude of a charging current, to be turned on during the charging operation. (Par 0089)
Re Claims 7 and 16; DeBoer discloses wherein the storage unit pre-stores a fault code corresponding to details of the failure. (Par 0047)
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeBoer in view of DeJonge (US 2024/0130019)
Re Claim 5 and 14; DeBoer discloses wherein the one or more LEDs are arranged in a vertical direction or horizontal direction
DeBoer does not disclose include LEDs ranging from an LED corresponding to a most significant bit (MSB) to an LED corresponding to a least significant bit (LSB) in a certain direction.
However, DeJonge discloses a plurality of LEDs connected in parallel or a suitable combination thereof, depending on the particular lighting system. In addition, each LED light source 102, 104 may comprise one or more organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs). The controllable lighting device 100 may include a plurality of different LED light sources, which may be rated at different magnitudes of load current and voltage. While not shown in FIG. 1, the controllable lighting device 100 may comprise a housing (e.g., a translucent housing) in which the LED light sources are located and through which the LED light sources may shine. For example, the controllable lighting device 100 may be capable of providing warm-dimming such that the color temperature of the cumulative light output shifts towards a warm-white color temperature as the intensity of the cumulative light output is decreased. For example, the first LED light source 102 may comprise a white LED light source and the second LED light source 104 may comprise a warm-white (e.g., red) LED light source, and the first LED light source 102 may have a higher power rating than the second LED light source 104.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have used the color to represent to a most significant bit (MSB) to an LED corresponding to a least significant bit (LSB) in a certain direction in order to adequately notify the user based on the status of the battery.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 9 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeBoer in view of DeJonge (US 2024/0130019) in view of Zaki et al. (US 2015/0160281)
Re Claims 6 and 15; DeBoer discloses wherein the fault code.
DeBoer does not disclose is a binary code having a preset number of bits.
However, Zaki discloses This voltage or current can be readily evaluated, for example by a logic circuit already existing in a controller. For example, a bit indicating an error may be set in the control signal wire; alternatively or in addition, an entry may be stored in a fault memory and/or a corresponding warning light for the driver may be activated. (Par 0010)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have used a bit representing the fault code in order to adequately indicate fault.
Re Claims 8 and 17; Zaki discloses wherein the controller controls the display unit so that up to a predetermined number of bits including an MSB display a fault item and bits other than the predetermined number of bits displaying the fault item display details included in each fault item.(the claim is understood as a use of a digital display (such LED indicator) to show system errors, where specific bits in a data word (a 16-bit or 32-bit number) are assigned to different functions: identifying a fault and providing details about it. ). Par 0034 of Zaki discloses that.
Re Claims 9 and 18; Zaki discloses wherein the fault item includes at least one of current, voltage, diagnosis, control pilot (CP), and temperature, and the details include at least one of occurrences of leakage current, overcharging current, overcharging voltage, undercharging voltage, relay self-diagnosis failure, self-diagnosis failure of a zero-phase current transformer (ZCT), abnormality of a CP voltage, overtemperature of a connector, overtemperature of a plug, and overtemperature of a printed circuit board (PCB). (Par 0034)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that DeBoer merely discloses general status indicators such as “charging,” “ready,” “fault,” or “pause,” and therefore does not disclose “a display unit displaying … a fault code for a cause of a charging failure,” as recited in claim 1. Applicant further contends that DeBoer’s “fault” indicator is only a generic fault state and does not identify a specific cause of failure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
DeBoer explicitly teaches a controller and display system configured to present diagnostic information to the user. Paragraphs [0097]–[0098] describe visual indicators that communicate operational states and fault conditions. While DeBoer uses LEDs and color‑coded indicators, the reference does not limit the diagnostic output to only a generic “fault” lamp. DeBoer teaches that the microcontroller monitors multiple operational parameters of the charging apparatus and provides visual feedback corresponding to those monitored conditions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a system capable of detecting multiple distinct fault conditions and providing visual feedback for each inherently teaches or suggests displaying information corresponding to the cause of the fault.
Furthermore, DeBoer’s diagnostic system is expressly designed to communicate operational abnormalities to the user. When a reference teaches a controller that detects failures and provides visual feedback corresponding to those failures, it reasonably suggests the claimed functionality of displaying a fault code identifying the cause of the failure. The distinction applicant attempts to draw between a “fault indicator” and a “fault code” is not supported by the claim language, which does not require alphanumeric codes or any particular format. A color‑coded or symbol‑based indicator corresponding to a specific failure condition constitutes a “fault code” under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, DeBoer anticipates or at least renders obvious the limitation of a controller configured to control a display unit to present a fault code corresponding to a detected failure during charging.
II. Claims 2–9 and 11–18 Ayin and the Double‑Electrode Structure
Applicant argues that Ayin merely discloses a pixel electrode and a common electrode formed on different layers, and that the examiner’s mapping repeats the same disclosure without addressing the applicant’s distinctions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ayin teaches a display panel comprising pixels arranged in a matrix, each including a pixel electrode and a common electrode that overlap with an insulating layer between them. Ayin further teaches that the electrodes are formed of different materials and are driven with different voltages during display operation. This directly corresponds to the claimed double‑electrode structure and voltage‑driven configuration.
The repetition in the Office Action reflects the fact that Ayin repeatedly and consistently teaches the same structural and functional relationship across multiple paragraphs. The examiner’s mapping is accurate and demonstrates that Ayin discloses each element of the claimed pixel structure. Applicant has not identified any structural or functional limitation in claims 2–9 or 11–18 that is absent from Ayin.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Ayin’s overlapping electrodes, insulating layer, material differentiation, and voltage‑driven operation meet the claimed features. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 remains proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
08/25/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights