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 § 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.
Claim(s) 13-16 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackenzie et al, US Pub. 2020/0324665, in view of Yegin et al, US Patent. 8,633,678.
Regarding claims 13, 22, and 23, Mackenzie et al disclose a method for charging a plug-in electric vehicle via another plug-in electric vehicle comprising: a device ( 102) for an electric vehicle ( 100), wherein the device ( 102) can be used for providing a charging energy (AE) for a further electric vehicle (200) and has the following features( the prior art discloses a V2V Energy transfer system according to figure 4B and paragraph 42):a battery interface ( 111) for connecting the device ( 102) to a vehicle battery ( 104) of the electric vehicle ( l00)(high-voltage battery 310 is connected to inverter 200);an inverter ( 112) having a first terminal (201)/or connecting the inverter ( 112) to the battery interface ( 111), and a second terminal (202)/or connecting the inverter ( 112) to a switch terminal (208)(inverter 200 is connected to charge port 300), wherein the inverter ( 112) is designed to convert a DC voltage at the first terminal (201) to an AC voltage and provide it at the second terminal (202)(according to paragraph 34: Additionally or alternatively, the EVSE controller 304, when connected to the port 306, may operate the converter 200 to transfer power from the traction battery 310. In some instances, power delivered to the vehicle 102 may be from an off-board EVSE and power transferred from the donor vehicle 102 may be transferred to another vehicle, e.g., receiving vehicle 104.);a switch device (206) having the switch terminal (208), which connects the switch device (206) to the second terminal (202), and having an energizing interface ( 113) for energizing the further electric vehicle (200) coupled to the energizing interface ( 113)(figure 4B and paragraph 42 disclose a V2V terminal); and a control device (214), which is designed to output an activation signal (215) to the switch device (206) if a limitation signal (216) does not indicate a limitation, and not to output the activation signal if the limitation signal (216) indicates a limitation(see paragraphs 43 and 44), wherein the activation signal (215) is designed to connect the switch terminal (208) to the energizing interface ( 113) in order to provide the charging energy (AE) at the energizing interface ( 113 )(according to claim l3 an electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) controller configured to, in response to detecting a connection to another vehicle, generate the pilot signal to indicate to the another vehicle that the another vehicle is connected to a charging station to cause the converter to generate power to transfer to the another vehicle.).
Makenzie et al fail to explicitly disclose that the control device sending the activation signal to the switch device only when a limit signal indicates no limit and not to sending the activation signal when the limit signal indicates a limit.
Yegin et al disclose an electric vehicle equipment supply equipment with over-current protection comprising: employing a controlled contactor circuit between an electrical power source and an electric vehicle connector, wherein the contactor circuit closes the electrical connection between the source and the vehicle connector in response to a close input signal; further teach interlocking logic in which the close signal is asserted only when predetermined monitor conditions indicate that energization is permissible, which an indication that an activation signal for a charging switch is generated only when monitored indicate that no condition prohibiting.
In view of the teachings of Yegin et al, it would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Makenzie et al; controller and switching such activation signal for charging-path connector only when the monitored operating condition indicates that vehicle-to-vehicle energy transfer is permitted and is withheld when the monitored condition indicates a limit in order to control when it is appropriate to charge the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the control device determines the limit signal using a charge state signal which represents a battery charge state of the vehicle battery and/ wherein the control device determines the defined minimum charge state depending on an expected demand on the vehicle battery through a further operation of the electric vehicle (see Makenzie et al par. 116-118).
Regarding claims 15-16, wherein the control device determines the limit signal which indicates no limit when the charge state signal represents a battery charge state of the vehicle battery above a defined minimum charge state and/or wherein the control device determines the limit signal indicating the limit when the charge state signal represents a battery charge state of the vehicle battery below a defined minimum charge state (see Makenzie et al par. 116-118).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackenzie et al as modified by Yegin et al in view of Bender et al, US Pub. 2006/0250902. The teachings of Mackenzie et al as modified by Yegin et al have been discussed above.
Mackenzie et al as modified by Yegin et al fail to disclose a switch connected to the energy interface for opening and closing based on signals in order to provide energy to the battery through the inverter connection.
Bender et al disclose a plug-in hybrid with fast charging storage comprising a switch device for connecting to the switch energy interface, and wherein the switch device is controlled by signals, wherein the switch device is connected to feed electrical energy into the apparatus and/or an auxiliary interface configured to connect the apparatus to an auxiliary drive, wherein the control device provides an inverter signal to convert a DC voltage applied to the first terminal into an AC voltage and to provide the AC voltage to the second terminal and/or to provide a further inverter signal in order to convert an AC voltage applied to the charge interface into a DC voltage and to provide the DC voltage to the first terminal. See paragraph 112 and figures 7 -9.
In view of the teachings of Bender et al, it would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan to modify the teachings of Mackenzie et al as modified by Yegin et al to include a witch with an inverter combination in order to effectively control the charging apparatus. Such modification would allow the apparatus to be ON or Off based on specific signals in order to meet specific customer requirements. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17-19 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: Although the prior art of record teaches establishing a minimum donor-battery energy, including determining the state of charge threshold, but does not dynamically determining that the minimum threshold based upon the expected future energy demand of the donor vehicle or determining the limit signal depending on a comparison between an amount signal which represents a defined maximum amount of charged energy and a charge signal which represent an amount of charging energy that is delivered. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claims were not shown by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7/13/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant’s argument regarding claim 13, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The new prior art (Yegin et al), Yegin et al disclose an electric vehicle equipment supply equipment with over-current protection comprising: employing a controlled contactor circuit between an electrical power source and an electric vehicle connector, wherein the contactor circuit closes the electrical connection between the source and the vehicle connector in response to a close input signal; further teach interlocking logic in which the close signal is asserted only when predetermined monitor conditions indicate that energization is permissible, which an indication that an activation signal for a charging switch is generated only when monitored indicate that no condition prohibiting. Makenzie et al as modified by Yegin et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the arguments and amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Pham Thomas can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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 ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights