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 . The instant application with Application Number 18/348,139 filed on 07/06/2023 is presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statment
The Information Disclosure Statements dated 07/06/2023 is acknowledged and the cited references have been considered in this examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
Figures 1-3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 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 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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-4, 10-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinomura (US 2023/0091946) in view of Kurimoto (US 2021/0398365).
With respect to claims 1, 12 and 18, Kinomura discloses a vehicle charging apparatus (Fig. 1, 3) comprising: a voltage sensor (Fig. 1, 47; par.#:0080: power accumulation device 12 based on information acquired from the current sensor 46 and the voltage sensor 47 provided) configured for determining a voltage on a control pilot line (Fig. 1, a control pilot (CP) 38); and a diagnostic controller (Para. # 208: the voltmeter
PNG
media_image1.png
566
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
241 transmits a measured voltage value to the control unit 216) configured for identifying a first fault in response to detecting (Para. # 208: fault detector 243 is connected to each charging line 231 and a ground line 237. The ground fault detector 243 transmits a detection result to the control unit 216), using the voltage sensor (Fig. 1, 47), a negative voltage at or below a threshold (Par. # 275: that the voltage of the power accumulation device 253 is equal to or higher than the battery yield strength upper limit value V4 (Yes in S1120), determining that the charging stop request has been input to the input unit (Yes in S1130), or determining that the charging stop signal S9 has been received (Yes in S1140), the control unit 255 determines that the charging stop condition has occurred).
Kinomura does not expressly disclose a vehicle charging diagnostic with a voltage detection system.
Kurimoto, on the other hand, vehicle charging diagnostic with a voltage detection apparatus (Pars. # 045,100: a “vehicle diagnostic system” and calculate the “capacity or voltage or power” retention Q of the vehicle’s battery; ECU 10 performing the update process and the display process, stated differently).
KINOMURA and Kurimoto are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely Vehicle charging and Vehicle diagnostic system.
it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a vehicle diagnostic system to the vehicle charging system of Kinomura in view of Kurimoto for the benefit of find the fault or detect system failure and update the system by calculating the capacity at the time of charging to avoid deterioration of the battery and optimize the system power in the vehicle (Para. # 100).
With respect to claims 2 and 17, the combined references of Kinomura and Kurimoto disclose the vehicle charging apparatus as described above, wherein Kurimoto discloses the negative voltage corresponds to a charging station having a negative potential (Para. # 0012).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, the combined references of Kinomura and Kurimoto disclose the vehicle charging apparatus as described above, wherein Kinomura discloses wherein the diagnostic controller outputs a first fault indicator in response to identifying a first fault (Para. # 208: A ground fault detector 243 is connected to each charging line 231 and a ground line 237. The ground fault detector 243 transmits a detection result to the control unit 216).
With respect to claims 4, 19 and 20, the combined references of Kinomura and Kurimoto disclose the vehicle charging apparatus as described above, wherein Kinomura discloses wherein the first fault indicator is associated with a permanent earth disconnection fault between at least one of: (i) a charging station and its coupler (Fig. 1, 3).
With respect to claim 10, the combined references of Kinomura and Kurimoto disclose the vehicle charging apparatus as described above, wherein Kinomura discloses wherein the diagnostic controller is configured to stop a charging operation in response to identifying a first fault or a further fault (Para. # 208: he ammeter 242 transmits a measured current value to the control unit 216. A ground fault detector 243 is connected to each charging line 231 and a ground line 237. The ground fault detector 243 transmits a detection result to the control unit 216).
With respect to claim 11, the combined references of Kinomura and Kurimoto disclose the vehicle charging apparatus as described above, wherein Kinomura discloses wherein the threshold is between -13V and -30V (Para. # 045: Each sensor outputs a result of the detection to the ECU 10. Based on the results of detection, including wide ranges of voltages/currents, by the respective sensors, the ECU 10 can calculate the SOC of the battery 13, and calculate the capacity retention).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 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. Claims 6-9 and 14-16 are depend on the above objected claims of 5 and 14.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YALKEW FANTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/YALKEW FANTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights