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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action has been issued in response to the amendment filed on April 23, 2026.
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered. Rejections have been maintained where arguments were not persuasive. Also, new rejections based on the amended claims have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected, and this action is made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
The drawings received on 4/23/2026 are acceptable. Accordingly, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 6 and 12 overcome the previous claim objections. Accordingly, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues DeDona does not describe that monitoring of the ground connection 118 is triggered in response to a determination that the monitored voltage supplied to the battery 24 is zero.
DeDona et al. (US 2015/0097525) discloses determining whether a charging cable (40) (Fig.2) is connected to a connector (34 comprised in vehicle 12) by: monitoring a voltage supplied to an electrical energy storage device (24) (Par.30 and 52; Voltage on the high-power lines 106.); and, monitoring an earth continuity measurement of the connector (34) (Par.21-23).
Newly found prior art Kojima (US 2016/0297310) discloses when a voltage supplied to an electrical energy storage device (110) (Fig.1) is zero, monitoring earth continuity measurement of a connector (702) (Par.13; Connector connection detection circuit operates only when the charging relay is turned off.) (Par.59-63; If charging relay 707 is open the electrical energy storage device (110) is not receiving voltage.).
The rejection is based on the combination of Then in view of DeDona and Kojima as seen below.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Then et al. (US 2013/0204473) in view of DeDona et al. (US 2015/0097525) and Kojima (US 2016/0297310).
Claim 1: Then teaches a parking brake management system (Fig.1) for a vehicle (100) (Par.37), the vehicle (100) comprising a parking brake (48) (Par.27), an electrical energy storage device (14) (Par.23), and a connector (16) for connecting a charging cable (20) to provide electrical energy to the electrical energy storage device (14) from an external power source (18) (Par.23-24); the parking brake management system comprising a processor (28) configured for determining whether the charging cable (20) is connected to the connector (16) (Par.25 and 49-50; The processor controls the operation of the brakes and the locks based on whether the charging cable (20) is inserted/coupled or pulled out from the connector (16). Therefore, the processor determines charging cable connection.).
Then does not explicitly teach determining whether the charging cable is connected to the connector by: monitoring a voltage supplied to the electrical energy storage device; and, monitoring an earth continuity measurement of the connector.
DeDona discloses determining whether a charging cable (40) (Fig.2) is connected to a connector (34 comprised in vehicle 12) by: monitoring a voltage supplied to an electrical energy storage device (24) (Par.30 and 52; Voltage on the high-power lines 106.); and, monitoring an earth continuity measurement of the connector (34) (Par.21-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of DeDona in the system of Then to have had accurately determined a connector engagement state utilizing a variety of measurements, to maximize charge availability and prevent drive-off, even if some signals are non-operational (Par.30).
The combination of Then in view of DeDona does not explicitly teach monitoring the earth continuity measurement of the connector in response to the monitored voltage being zero.
Kojima teaches when a voltage supplied to an electrical energy storage device (110) (Fig.1) is zero, monitoring earth continuity measurement of a connector (702) (Par.59-63; If switch 707 is open the electrical energy storage device (110) is not receiving voltage.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Kojima in the combination of Then in view of DeDona to have had performed operation confirmation of the connector connection (Par.63) to have had allowed/inhibited charging depending on the determination of a correct/failing connection (Par.79-80) thereby preventing adversely affecting the charging system (Par.11).
Claim 4: Then in view of DeDona and Kojima teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Then does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine that the charging cable is connected to the connector if the monitored voltage supplied to the electrical energy storage device is greater than zero.
DeDona teaches a processor (114) (Fig.2) configured to determine that the charging cable (40) is connected to the connector (34) if the monitored voltage supplied to the electrical energy storage device (24) is greater than zero (Par.30; Connected when a voltage on the power lines (106) is detected.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of DeDona in the system of Then to have had detected a proper engagement of the charging cable and the connector (Par.28) and have had allowed charging only when a proper detection is determined for safety (Par.29 and 44).
Claim 9: Then in view of DeDona and Kojima teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Then teaches wherein if the processor (28) determines that the charging cable (20) is connected to the connector (16), the processor (28) is configured to prevent deactivation of the parking brake (48) of the vehicle (100) (Par.49).
Claim 10: Then in view of DeDona and Kojima teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Then teaches wherein if the processor (28) determines that the charging cable (20) is not connected to the connector (16), the processor (28) is configured to allow deactivation of the parking brake (48) of the vehicle (100) (Par.50-51).
Claim 11: Then in view of DeDona and Kojima teach the limitations of claim 9 as disclosed above. Then does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to display an indication to a driver of the vehicle of whether or not the charging cable is connected to the connector.
DeDona teaches the processor (114) is configured to display an indication to a driver of the vehicle (12) of whether or not the charging cable (40) is connected to the connector (34) (Par.32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of DeDona in the system of Then to have had provided feedback to the driver if the charging cable is engaged to the connector (Par.32) to permit rectification of any connection issues (Par.41).
Claim 12: Then teaches a method for controlling a parking brake (48) (Fig.1) of a vehicle, the vehicle (100) comprising the parking brake (48) (Par.27), an electrical energy storage device (14) (Par.23), and a connector (16) for connecting a charging cable (20) to provide electrical energy to the electrical energy storage device (14) from an external power source (18) (Par.23-24); the method comprising: determining whether the charging cable (20) is connected to the connector (16) (Par.25 and 49-50; The processor controls the operation of the brakes and the locks based on whether the charging cable (20) is inserted/coupled or pulled out from the connector (16). Therefore, the processor determines charging cable connection.).
Then does not explicitly teach the method comprising: determining whether the charging cable is connected to the connector by: monitoring a voltage supplied to the electrical energy storage device; and monitoring an earth continuity measurement of the connector.
DeDona discloses a method comprising: determining whether a charging cable (40) (Fig.2) is connected to a connector (34 comprised in vehicle 12) by: monitoring a voltage supplied to an electrical energy storage device (24) (Par.30 and 52; Voltage on the high-power lines 106.); and, monitoring an earth continuity measurement of the connector (34) (Par.21-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of DeDona in the system of Then to have had accurately determined a connector engagement state utilizing a variety of measurements, to maximize charge availability and prevent drive-off, even if some signals are non-operational (Par.30).
The combination of Then in view of DeDona does not explicitly teach monitoring the earth continuity measurement of the connector in response to the monitored voltage being zero.
Kojima teaches when a voltage supplied to an electrical energy storage device (110) (Fig.1) is zero, monitoring earth continuity measurement of a connector (702) (Par.59-63; If switch 707 is open the electrical energy storage device (110) is not receiving voltage.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Kojima in the combination of Then in view of DeDona to have had performed operation confirmation of the connector connection (Par.63) to have had allowed/inhibited charging depending on the determination of a correct/failing connection (Par.79-80) thereby preventing adversely affecting the charging system (Par.11).
Claim 13: Then in view of DeDona and Kojima teach the limitations of claim 12 as disclosed above. Then does not explicitly teach wherein the method comprises determining that the charging cable is connected to the connector if the voltage supplied to the electrical energy storage device is greater than zero, or a current intensity in the earth connection is greater than zero.
DeDona teaches the method comprises determining that the charging cable (40) is connected to the connector (34) if the voltage supplied to the electrical energy storage device (24) is greater than zero (Par.30; Connected when a voltage on the power lines (106) is detected.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of DeDona in the system of Then to have had detected a proper engagement of the charging cable and the connector (Par.28) and have had allowed charging only when a proper detection is determined for safety (Par.29 and 44).
Claim 14: Then in view of DeDona and Kojima teach the limitations of claim 13 as disclosed above. Then teaches wherein the method comprises preventing deactivation of the parking brake (48) of the vehicle (100) (Par.49).
Claim 15: Then in view of DeDona and Kojima teach the limitations of claim 13 as disclosed above. Then does not explicitly teach wherein the method comprises displaying an indication to a driver of the vehicle that the charging cable is connected to the connector, or displaying an indication to a driver of the vehicle that the charging cable is not connected to the connector.
DeDona teaches the method comprises displaying an indication to a driver of the vehicle (12) (Fig.2) that the charging cable (40) is connected to the connector (34) (Par.32), or displaying an indication to a driver of the vehicle (12) that the charging cable (40) is not connected to the connector (34) (Par.32 and 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of DeDona in the system of Then to have had provided feedback to the driver if the charging cable is engaged to the connector (Par.32) to permit rectification of any connection issues (Par.41).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Then et al. (US 2013/0204473) in view of DeDona et al. (US 2015/0097525) and Kojima (US 2016/0297310) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vehr et al. (US 2018/0001739).
Claim 2: Then in view of DeDona and Kojima teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Then does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle comprises a refrigeration unit, and wherein the electrical energy storage device is configured to provide electrical power to the refrigeration unit.
Vehr teaches a vehicle (100) (Fig.1A) comprising a refrigeration unit (124), and wherein an electrical energy storage device (120) is configured to provide electrical power to the refrigeration unit (124) (Par.35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Vehr in the system of Then to have had provided power to a refrigerated space of the vehicle if required/desired for the transportation of perishable items (Par.35).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Then et al. (US 2013/0204473) in view of DeDona et al. (US 2015/0097525) and Kojima (US 2016/0297310) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flynn et al. (US 2023/0174300).
Claim 3: Then in view of DeDona and Kojima teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Then does not explicitly teach wherein the voltage supplied to the electrical energy storage device is a three-phase voltage.
Flynn teaches a voltage supplied to an electrical energy storage device is a three-phase voltage (Par.127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the charging station of Then supplying a three-phase voltage to have had the ability of transmitting three times as much power in comparison to a single-phase voltage supply (Par.127) as taught in Flynn; thereby reducing charging time.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Then et al. (US 2013/0204473) in view of DeDona et al. (US 2015/0097525) and Kojima (US 2016/0297310) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sarangi (US 2018/0326856).
Claims 6-8: Then in view of DeDona and Kojima teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. The combination of Then in view of DeDona does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to monitor an earth continuity measurement of the connector by monitoring a current intensity in the earth connection of the charging cable; wherein the processor is configured to supply a current to the earth connection in order to monitor the current intensity in the earth connection of the charging cable; wherein the processor is configured to determine that the charging cable is connected to the connector if the current intensity in the earth connection is greater than zero.
Sarangi teaches wherein a processor (2) (Fig.1) configured to monitor an earth continuity measurement of a connector (7) by monitoring a current intensity in the earth connection of a charging cable (6) (Par.36); wherein the processor (2) is configured to supply a current (detection current) to an earth connection (5) in order to monitor the current intensity in the earth connection (5) of the charging cable (6) (Par.30); wherein the processor (2) is configured to determine that the charging cable (6) is connected to the connector (7) if the current intensity in the earth connection (5) is greater than zero (Par.36; 10mA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Sarangi in the combination of Then in view of DeDona to have had selectively detected continuity of a ground connection by application of a detection current (Par.8 and 30) to have had prevented charging if a ground connection is broken (Par.7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sjodin (US 2018/0029600) teaches a parking brake management system (10) (Fig.1) for a vehicle (1) (Par.47), the vehicle (1) comprising a parking brake (42) (Par.50), an electrical energy storage device (32) (Par.49), and a connector (31) for connecting a charging cable (5) to provide electrical energy to the electrical energy storage device (32) from an external power source (3) (Par.49); the parking brake management system (10) comprising a processor (13) configured for determining whether the charging cable (5) is connected to the connector (31) (Par.57).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Julian D Huffman can be reached at 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 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.
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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights