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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to label the element boxes in Fig.1. Without some indication as to the content of the boxes (or preferably symbols of the actual elements) it is not clear as to what the elements are and they are not explanatory to a reader as a quick method of determining the general background of the invention. See MPEP 608.02 and 37 CFR 1.84 (0) – Legends: Suitable descriptive legends may be used, or may be required by the Examiner, where necessary for understanding of the drawing, subject to approval by the Office. They should contain as few words as possible.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the connecter” in Line 2.
Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites the limitation “a connector” in Line 2.
The limitation of Claim 6, Line 2 should recite: the connector.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a parking brake” in Lines 1 and 1-2.
The limitation of Claim 12, Lines 1-2 is interpreted as reciting: the parking brake.
Appropriate correction is required.
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).
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).
Claim 4: Then in view of DeDona 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 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 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 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).
Claim 13: Then in view of DeDona 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 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 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vehr et al. (US 2018/0001739).
Claim 2: Then in view of DeDona 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flynn et al. (US 2023/0174300).
Claim 3: Then in view of DeDona 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 5-8 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sarangi (US 2018/0326856).
Claim 5: Then in view of DeDona 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 the earth continuity measurement of the connector if the monitored voltage supplied to the electrical energy storage device is zero.
Sarangi teaches a processor (2) (Fig.1) (Par.39) is configured to monitor earth continuity measurement of a connector (7) if a monitored voltage supplied to an electrical energy storage device is zero (Par.29-30; The earth continuity is monitored before a charging cycle is started.).
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 detected a charging cable is correctly connected and a ground is not broken prior to allowing charging (Par.7 and 28-29).
Claims 6-8: Then in view of DeDona 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).
Schygge et al. (US 2014/0244090) teaches a parking brake management system (150) (Fig.5) for a vehicle (10) (Par.47), the vehicle (1) comprising a parking brake (Par.47), an electrical energy storage device (74) (Fig.1B) (Par.31), and a connector (174) (Fig.4) for connecting a charging cable (170) to provide electrical energy to the electrical energy storage device (74) from an external power source (176) (Par.36); the parking brake management system (150) (Fig.5) comprising a processor (210) configured for determining whether the charging cable (170) is connected to the connector (174) (Par.40 and 42).
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859