DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 7/1/2026
Hereon, claims 14-33 are currently pending; claims 14-33 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)(s) file on have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
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) 14-18,23,26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gotz, (USNO.2012/0056583).
As for claim 14, Gotz discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3 an electric vehicle charging controller comprising: a first control unit (ref’s charge scheduler) configured to perform a charging sequence (via ref’s charging priority) for charging a battery disposed in a vehicle on the basis of a charging sequence signal received from an electric vehicle supply equipment; a second control unit (within ref’s internal controller) configured to generate a first control signal for waking the first control unit up on the basis of the charging sequence signal; a first switch unit (via ref’s interface) controlled by the first control unit and configured to transmit the charging sequence signal to the first control unit or block transmission of the charging sequence signal; and a second switch unit (via ref’s charge interface) controlled by the second control unit and configured to transmit the charging sequence signal to the second control unit or block transmission of the charging sequence signal (par.[0035,0040-0044,0055-0057,0073]).
As for claim 15, Gotz discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3 the first control
unit controls the first switch unit to transmit the charging sequence signal on the basis of the first control signal.
As for claim 16, Gotz discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3 the first control
unit turns the first switch unit on when the first control unit is switched from a sleep mode to a wake-up mode on the basis of the first control signal.
As for claim 17, Gotz discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3 the second
control unit controls the second switch unit to be turned on/off for a predetermined period of time and receives the charging sequence signal for the predetermined period of time (par.[0056-0057]).
As for claim 18, Gotz discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3 the second
control unit generates the first control signal when the charging sequence signal is transmitted in a period of time in which the second switch unit is turned on.
As for claim 23, Gotz discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3 an electric vehicle charging controller comprising: a first micro controller (ref’s charge scheduler) ; a second micro controller (within ref’s internal controller); a first switch (via ref’s interface) of which a second end is connected to a first terminal of the first micro controller; and a second switch (ref’s charge interface) of which a first end is connected to a first terminal of the second micro controller and a second end is connected to a first end of the first switch, wherein the first end of the first switch and the second end of the second switch are electrically connected to one of signal terminals of an inlet (via connection of charge scheduler and charging interface) (par.[0035,0040-0044,0055-0057,0073]).
As for claim 26, Gotz discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3 control method of charging an electric vehicle using an electric vehicle charging controller, the control method comprising: repeatedly turning, by a second control unit (within ref’s internal controller) , a second switch unit (via ref’s charge interface) on and off for a predetermined period of time in a state in which a first switch unit is turned off; receiving, by the second control unit, a charging sequence (via ref’s charging priority) signal in a state in which the second switch unit is turned on;
generating, by the second control unit, a first control signal on the basis of the charging sequence signal; switching the first control unit from a sleep mode to a wake-up mode when driving power is supplied to the first control unit on the basis of the first control signal; and turning, by the first control unit, the first switch unit on and receiving the charging sequence signal (par.[0035,0040-0044,0055-0057,0073]).
As for claim 27, Gotz discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3 receiving of the charging sequence signal includes receiving, by the second control unit, the charging sequence signal for the predetermined period of time (par.[0056-0057]).
As for claim 28, Gotz in combination with discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3 generating of the first control signal includes generating, by the second control unit, the first control signal when the charging sequence signal is transmitted in a period of time in which the second switch unit is turned on.
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) 19,20,24,29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotz in view of Bernardini et al,(Bernardini), (USNO.2021/0138920).
As for claim 19 , Gotz discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a first converter unit configured to convert a direct current (DC) voltage of the battery having a first voltage value into a second voltage value and supply the converted DC voltage having the second voltage value to the second control unit
Bernardini discloses and shows in Fig. 1 a first converter unit configured (ref’s DC-to-DC converter) to convert a direct current (DC) voltage of the battery having a first voltage value into a second voltage value and supply the converted DC voltage having the second voltage value to a second control unit (par.[0036,0040,0043])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Gotz by using a first converter unit configured to convert a direct current (DC) voltage of the battery having a first voltage value into a second voltage value and supply the converted DC voltage having the second voltage value to the second control unit for advantages such as providing the ability to deliver energy efficiently (par.[0006]), as taught by Bernardini.
As for claim 20, Gotz in combination with Bernardini discloses and shows in Fig. 1 a second converter unit configured to convert a direct current (DC) voltage of the battery having a first voltage value into a third voltage value and supply the converted DC voltage having the third voltage value to the first control unit (par.[0036,0040,0043 of Bernardini])
As for claim 24, Gotz in combination with Bernardini discloses and shows in Fig. 1 a first converter of which a first terminal is connected to a battery of the electric vehicle and a second terminal is connected to a power supply terminal of the second micro controller.
As for claim 29, Gotz in combination with Bernardini discloses and shows in Figs. 1 before the repeatedly turning the second switch unit on and off, converting, by a first converter unit, a direct current (DC) voltage of a battery having a first voltage value into a second voltage value and supplying the converted DC voltage having the second voltage value to the second control unit.
As for claim 30, Gotz in combination with Bernardini discloses and shows in Figs. 1 after the generating of the first control signal on the basis of the charging sequence signal, converting, by a second converter unit, a direct current (DC) voltage of a battery having a first voltage value into a third voltage value and supplying the converted DC voltage having the third voltage value to the first
control unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22,25,31-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 21: the second converter unit converts a direct current (DC) voltage of the battery having a first voltage value into a third voltage value on the basis of at least one of a first driving signal output from a controller area network (CAN) transceiver of the electric vehicle and a second driving signal output from a CAN transceiver of the electric vehicle supply equipment and the first control signal, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims
Claim 25: a second converter, wherein: a first terminal of the second converter is connected to one of a controller area network (CAN) transceiver of the electric vehicle or a CAN transceiver of an electric vehicle supply equipment; a second terminal of the second converter is connected to a second terminal of the second micro controller; and
a third terminal is connected to a second terminal of the first micro controller, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims
Claim 31: second converter unit converts the DC voltage of the battery having the first voltage value into the third voltage value on the basis of at least one of a first driving signal output from a controller area network (CAN) transceiver of the electric vehicle and a second driving signal output from a CAN transceiver of an electric vehicle supply equipment and the first control signal, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants’ argument that
Furthermore, the Charge scheduler and Internal controller in Gotz are components of the group charging station and of an individual charging station forming part of the group charging station; the interface is for connecting an individual charging station to the power supply network (SVN); and the Charge interface is merely an interface connecting a vehicle battery to an individual charging station. None of these correspond to a component located inside the vehicle. That is, Gotz is concerned with charging priority/scheduling of vehicles for efficiently charging multiple vehicle batteries at a group charging station, such that components inside the vehicle are not of interest in Gotz. Moreover,
Gotz does not teach or suggest the interface and the Charge interface include a switch unit. Bernardini et al. also does not teach or suggest the combination of features recite din claim 14.
The examiner respectfully disagree and submits,
I & II. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, Gotz discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3 an electric vehicle charging controller comprising: a first control unit (ref’s charge scheduler) configured to perform a charging sequence (via ref’s charging priority) for charging a battery disposed in a vehicle on the basis of a charging sequence signal received from an electric vehicle supply equipment; a second control unit (within ref’s internal controller) configured to generate a first control signal for waking the first control unit up on the basis of the charging sequence signal; a first switch unit (via ref’s interface) controlled by the first control unit and configured to transmit the charging sequence signal to the first control unit or block transmission of the charging sequence signal; and a second switch unit (via ref’s charge interface) controlled by the second control unit and configured to transmit the charging sequence signal to the second control unit or block transmission of the charging sequence signal (par.[0035,0040-0044,0055-0057,0073]), as clamed.
For at least the reasons provided above, the applicant arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive. The applicant argues that dependent claims are patentable for similar reasons and are also not persuasive. The applicant further argues that since dependent claims depend on the argued independent claim; they are patentable at least by virtue of their dependencies. Since the applicant's arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive, the applicant's arguments regarding dependent claims are also not persuasive.
Accordingly, the rejection is still proper and thus maintained.
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 extension fee 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 ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 571-272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights