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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/255,452 filed on 10/26/2023 in which claims 1-9 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of preliminary amendment filed on 10/26/2023 in which claims 1-9 are currently amended while claims 10-12 have been newly added. By this amendment, claims 1-12 are now pending in the application for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/01/2023 have been considered and put on record. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
Specification
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the underlined limitations of: “either according to a second embodiment variant …
or according to a first embodiment variant …”as recited in claims 1,2 and 9 should be avoided as they introduce ambiguity. While these underlined terms are allowed in the specification as the specification is the descriptive part of the patent, these same terms limit the protection of the patent sought and also introduce ambiguity. Because the claims limitations that the follow according to first embodiment (respectively second embodiment) implies that the elements listed are optional or only apply in a specific scenario, rendering the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the underlined limitations of: “either according to a second embodiment variant …
or according to a first embodiment variant …”as recited in claims 1,2 and 9 should be avoided as they introduce ambiguity. While these underlined terms are allowed in the specification as the specification is the descriptive part of the patent, these same terms limit the protection of the patent sought and also introduce ambiguity. Because the claims limitations that the follow according to first embodiment (respectively second embodiment) implies that the elements listed are optional or only apply in a specific scenario, rendering the claims indefinite.
Claims 2-8,10-12 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1 and thus are also rejected for the same reasons.
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) 1,3,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0138730 A1 to Fuchs et al., (Fuchs).
Regarding claim 1: Fuchs at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1-6: A charging system for an electrical vehicle(see [0018],[0020]), the charging system comprising: a storage unit(7) designed for supply of electrical energy via two supply terminals(DC+, DC-)(see Fig. 6), wherein the storage unit comprises a store comprising two terminals disconnectably connected(via selection switch 8; see Fig. 6) to the two supply terminals(DC+, DC-)(see Fig. 6) via a second disconnection switch and a third disconnection switch(see annotated Fig. 6 ); and a voltage converter unit(6) designed as a construction unit which is separate from the storage unit(7) and which is connected to the storage unit(combo of 7 and 8)via three terminals of the voltage converter unit(6), wherein in a connected state: within the storage unit two of the three terminals of the voltage converter unit(6) are connected to the two terminals of the store(7)(see direct connections between the storage device and the voltage converter unit), and either according to a second embodiment variant within the storage unit(combination of 7,8 and 5) the third of the three terminals of the voltage converter unit(6) is connected(via isolation switches 5) to one of the supply terminals via a first disconnection switch(see annotated Fig. 6 below), or according to a first embodiment variant within the storage unit(combination of 7 and 8) the third of the three terminals of the voltage converter unit(6) is connected to one of the two supply terminals(DC+, DC-); and within the voltage converter unit(6)(via isolation switch 5) the third of the three terminals of the voltage converter unit(combination of 6 and 5) leads via a first disconnection switch(5)(see annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Fuchs discloses and shows in Figs. 1-6: A voltage converter unit comprising: an input terminal for the connection to a first pole of an input voltage source; an output terminal for the connection to a first pole of a consumer which is to be fed; and a common terminal for the connection to a second pole of the input voltage source and to a second pole of the consumer, wherein the input terminal leads via a first disconnection switch.
Regarding claim 3, Fuchs discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Fuchs further teaches, wherein the voltage converter unit(6) is designed to be able to be manufactured, handled, and transported independently of the storage unit(7)(by inspection of Figs. 1-6, the converter unit (6) and the storage unit (7) are two separate units).
PNG
media_image1.png
656
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2018/0138730 A1 to Fuchs et al., (Fuchs) in view of US 2020/0055412 A1 Krieg et al., (Krieg).
Regarding claim 9: Fuchs discloses and shows in Figs. 1-6: A storage unit comprising: two supply terminals(See DC+,DC-); a store(7) comprising two terminals(see annotated Fig. 6 below) which are disconnectably connected to the two supply terminals(see annotated Fig. 6 below) via a second disconnection switch and a third disconnection switch(see annotated Fig. 6);
Fuchs does not expressly teach three terminals of the store for connection to corresponding terminals of a voltage converter unit, wherein within the storage unit two of the three terminals are connected to the two terminals of the store, and either according to a second embodiment variant a third of the three terminals is disconnectably connected to one of the two supply terminals via a first disconnection switch, or according to a first embodiment variant the third of the three terminals is connected to one of the two supply terminals.
Krieg teaches and shows in Fig. 4 factual evidence, and three terminals(P1, P2, P3) for connection to corresponding terminals(130, 131,121) of a voltage converter unit(111), wherein within the storage unit two of the three terminals(P1,P2) are connected to the two terminals of the store(130,131), and either according to a second embodiment variant a third(121) of the three terminals(P3) is disconnectably connected to one of the two supply terminals(E1,E2) via a first disconnection switch(via switch S4), or according to a first embodiment variant the third(P3) of the three terminals(P1,P2,P3) is connected to one of the two supply terminals(E1,E2).
Fuchs and Krieg are vehicle electrical energy storage system analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to avail of the converter unit of Krieg into the system of Fuchs by having, three terminals of the store for connection to corresponding terminals of a voltage converter unit, wherein within the storage unit two of the three terminals are connected to the two terminals of the store, and either according to a second embodiment variant a third of the three terminals is disconnectably connected to one of the two supply terminals via a first disconnection switch, or according to a first embodiment variant the third of the three terminals is connected to one of the two supply terminals, as recited, because when a device or technology is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in a different one, so that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, the variation is likely obvious. Furthermore, a patent claim can be proved obvious by showing that the claimed combination of elements was “obvious to try,” particularly when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such that a POSITA would have had good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Accordingly claim 9 would have been obvious.
Claims 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over 2018/0138730 A1 to Fuchs et al., (Fuchs)
Regarding claim 6, Fuchs discloses all the claimed invention except for the limitations of, “wherein the supply terminals are designed for a maximal rapid charging current which is more than double a maximal charging current capable of being provided by the voltage converter unit”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have, “wherein the supply terminals are designed for a maximal rapid charging current which is more than double a maximal charging current capable of being provided by the voltage converter unit”, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Fuchs discloses all the claimed invention except for the limitations of, “wherein the supply terminals are designed for a maximal rapid charging current of above 300 amperes and/or the voltage converter unit is designed for a maximum charging current of above 50 amperes”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the supply terminals designed for a maximal rapid charging current of above 300 amperes and/or the voltage converter unit is designed for a maximum charging current of above 50 amperes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Fuchs discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 7. However, Fuchs does not expressly disclose the limitation of, “wherein the supply terminals are designed for a maximal rapid charging current of above 400 amperes, and/or the voltage converter unit is designed for a maximum charging current of above 100 amperes”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have, “wherein the supply terminals are designed for a maximal rapid charging current of above 400 amperes, and/or the voltage converter unit is designed for a maximum charging current of above 100 amperes”, as recited, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2018/0138730 A1 to Fuchs et al., (Fuchs) in view of Oyobe et al., (Oyobe) JP 2009027811A(Machine Translation)
Regarding claim 5, Fuchs discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose the limitations of:
wherein the supply terminals are formed on a single plug or on two separate plugs.
Oyobe teaches factual evidence of, wherein the supply terminals(ACL1, ACL2) are formed on a single plug(70) or on two separate plugs(see Fig. 6)([0033],[0141]).
Fuchs and Oyobe are vehicle power control device analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the single plug as taught by Oyobe into the system of Fuchs, by having, wherein the supply terminals are formed on a single plug or on two separate plugs, as recited, for the advantages of providing a power control device capable of reducing a high-frequency current appearing in a plug connectable to a power source or an electric load outside the vehicle, and suppressing an increase in the size of the device, as per the teachings of Oyobe ([0006]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2018/0138730 A1 to Fuchs et al., (Fuchs) in view of Oyobe et al., (Oyobe) JP 2009027811A(Machine Translation) and in further view of Jefferies et al., (Jefferies) EP 3025901 A1
Regarding claim 11, Fuchs at least render obvious all the claimed limitations as set forth and discussed above in claim 5. Modified Fuchs in view of Oyobe does not expressly disclose the limitations of, wherein the single plug(70) or the two separate plugs each have safety contacts for a pilot circuit or a safety circuit respectively.
Jefferies discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3, factual evidence of, wherein the single plug(110) or the two separate plugs each have safety contacts for a pilot circuit(CP(A) and CP(B)) or a safety circuit(connector latch not shown; see [0051]) respectively(see [0008]-[0010],[0014]-[0017]).
Fuchs, Oyobe and Jefferies are electric vehicle charging system analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jefferies and Fuchs as modified by Oyobe by having, wherein the single plug or the two separate plugs each have safety contacts for a pilot circuit or a safety circuit respectively, so as to provide shared power at the determined modified available charging rate to different vehicles while maintain safety for both the operators and the vehicles.
Accordingly claim 11 would have been obvious.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2018/0138730 A1 to Fuchs et al., (Fuchs) in view of Misumi et al., (Misumi) JP 2008166545A (Machine Translation)
Regarding claim 4, Fuchs discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Fuchs does not expressly teach the limitations of, wherein the three terminals via which the voltage converter unit is connected to the storage unit are releasable and reconnectable terminals.
Misumi teaches factual evidence of a storage unit (12), wherein the three terminals(158) via which the voltage converter unit is connected to the storage unit are releasable and reconnectable terminals(at least the three terminal parts which are disposed in the single horizontal line are clamped by a terminal holding piece formed by bending one metallic plate with a plurality of projections in one surface so that the surface with the projection is opposed and thereby the plurality of projections bite into both surfaces of at least the three terminal parts; see abstract)(under heading Tech-Solution, Misumi discloses “The at least three terminal portions (158) are clamped and the plurality of protrusions (166) are bitten on both surfaces of the at least three terminal portions (158); see [0006]).
Fuchs and Misumi are battery storage systems analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the storage unit of Misumi with the system of Fuchs by having, wherein the three terminals via which the voltage converter unit is connected to the storage unit are releasable and reconnectable terminals, as recited, in order to ease the battery replacement.
Accordingly claim 4 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Fuchs in view of Misumi discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 4. Misumi further teaches, wherein the releasable and reconnectable terminals are plug-in terminals, screw terminals, or clamping terminals(Misumi; abstract; “The at least three terminal portions (158) are clamped and the plurality of protrusions (166) are bitten on both surfaces of the at least three terminal portions (158)”; see [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, patentability exists at least in part with the claimed limitations of, “…wherein the voltage converter unit comprises: an input terminal, an output terminal, a common terminal, and a voltage converter for converting an input voltage which is present between the input terminal and the common terminal into an output voltage which is present between the output terminal and the common terminal…”.
Citation of Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 203623954 U to Wang et al., (Wang) discloses an energy demagnetizing module and power supply.
US 2013/0342163 A1 to Naruse discloses the general state of the art regarding a vehicle power control apparatus and vehicle power control.
USPAT 10,581,253 B2 to Preindl et al.., (Preindl) discloses an energy storage balancing system.
USPAT 11,097,626 B2 to Pfeilschifter et al., (Pfeilschifter) discloses a vehicle electrical system having an electrical energy store, a direct voltage converter and a direct current transmission connection.
US 20150298631 to Belger et al., (Belger) discloses the general state of the art regarding an electric transportation means, associated method and associated rechargeable battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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 A 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights