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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/6/2023 and 2/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2, 7 and 10 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 2 and 7 recite “reduce the charging current to a value corresponding at the maximum to the continuous current”. This wording (“a value corresponding at the maximum to the continuous current”) is awkward and confusing. It is not clear what “at the maximum” refers to. More specifically, does the applicant mean the maximum temperature, as recited in claims 1 and 6? For does applicant mean a maximum current? If the latter, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Please clarify.
Claim 10 recites “a third interface”. However, claim 6 recites “a first interface”. As such, it is not clear if the applicant intends there to be three interfaces, or two interfaces where “third” is merely a title. Please clarify. For examination purposes, “a third interface” will be interpreted as a second interface, i.e. there being two interfaces total.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Banks (WO 2012139778).
With respect to claims 1, 6 and 11, Banks discloses a control unit for controlling a charging process of electric vehicles, having:
a first interface (plug) by way of which the control unit is able to be connected or is connected to a charging station (44) (pg. 19, lines 5-12; Fig. 8); and
a processor which is configured (pg. 19, lines 14-21; Fig. 8):
to instruct the charging station to charge an electric vehicle by way of a charging cable with a charging current, wherein an initial current value of the charging current is above a continuous current value attributed to the charging cable (pg. 27, lines 34-35; Fig. 12B);
to determine whether a temperature associated with the charging cable reaches or exceeds a maximum temperature value associated with the charging cable (pg. 23, lines 24-30; pg. 27, lines 17-24); and
to instruct the charging station to reduce the charging current if the temperature associated with the charging cable reaches or exceeds the maximum temperature value (pg. 23, lines 28-30; pg. 27, lines 17-31).
Banks further discloses a charging system for carrying out a charging process of electric vehicles that includes a charging station (44), a charging cable (7) by way of which the charging station is able to be connected or is connected to an electric vehicle; and the claimed control unit above (pg. 19, lines 5-12; Fig. 8).
The method is inherent to the control unit/system.
With respect to claims 2 and 7, as best understood, Banks fails to expressly disclose the processor is further configured to instruct the charging station to reduce the charging current to a value corresponding at the maximum to the continuous current (as best understood, a predetermined current far from the maximum rated current) if the temperature associated with the charging cable reaches or exceeds the maximum temperature value (pg. 27, lines 26-31).
With respect to claim 9, Banks discloses a second interface (e.g. status indicator) which is configured to receive or to determine the temperature associated with the charging cable (pg. 19, line 15 – pg. 20, line 6).
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) 3 and 8, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banks as applied to claim 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN109936185) (see attached machine translation).
With respect to claims 3 and 8, Banks addresses all the limitations of claims 1 and 6.
Banks fails to expressly disclose the processor is further configured to instruct the charging station to maintain the charging current at a value above the continuous current if the temperature associated with the charging cable does not reach or does not exceed the maximum temperature value.
Zhao teaches it is well known in the art to maintain the charging current at a value (first set current) above the continuous current (second set current) if the temperature associated with the charging cable does not reach or does not exceed the maximum temperature value (pg. 5 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor to be further configured to instruct the charging station to maintain the charging current at a value above the continuous current if the temperature associated with the charging cable does not reach or does not exceed the maximum temperature value, in order to maximize the rate of charging when the temperature associated with the charging cable does not reach or does not exceed the maximum temperature value.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 10, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banks as applied to claim 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0015200).
With respect to claims 4, 5 and 10, Banks addresses all the limitations of claims 1 and 6.
Banks fails to expressly disclose a third interface which is configured: to receive information relating to a capacity to be charged of a battery to be charged of the electric vehicle, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the initial current value of the charging current taking account of the capacity of the battery to be charged; and/or to receive information relating to a time period for at least partial charging of a battery to be charged of the electric vehicle, wherein the processor is configured to determine the initial current value of the charging current taking account of the time period for at least partial charging of the battery to be charged.
Kim et al. teaches it is well known in the art to include an interface configured to receive information relating to a capacity to be charged of a battery to be charged of the electric vehicle, wherein a processor is configured to determine an initial current value of the charging current taking account of the capacity of the battery to be charged; and/or to receive information relating to a time period for at least partial charging of a battery to be charged of the electric vehicle, wherein a processor is configured to determine the initial current value of the charging current taking account of the time period for at least partial charging of the battery to be charged ([0071], [0089], [0094], [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a third interface which is configured: to receive information relating to a capacity to be charged of a battery to be charged of the electric vehicle, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the initial current value of the charging current taking account of the capacity of the battery to be charged; and/or to receive information relating to a time period for at least partial charging of a battery to be charged of the electric vehicle, wherein the processor is configured to determine the initial current value of the charging current taking account of the time period for at least partial charging of the battery to be charged, in order to provide additional desired information regarding an initial charging state, a current charging state, amplitude of current applied, charging status information, and an actual charging finish time based on a capacity of the battery.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Thomas Pham 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights