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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are indicated in the table below, along with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB citation)
Electric unit
1
A driving battery, a power converter, a motor, and the like (¶0015))
Heating unit
1
The bypass path of a hot water passage of a cooling circuit (¶0023) or a heat exchanger (¶0043)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “contact-type automatic charger” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “a charging device which receives power from a contact power feed or non-contact power feed” while the accepted meaning is “a charging device which receives power from a contact power feed.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. As stated in the specification in paragraph ¶0016 of the PGPUG, the contact-type automatic charger is described as either receiving power from contact power or non-contact power, and so it is unclear if the contact-type automatic charger is intended to limit the system to contact based power transmission methods or non-contact, wireless, based power transmission methods. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets this term to be read as its accepted meaning of “a charging device which receives power from a contact power feed”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockinger et al. (USPGPN 2019/0263278), in view of Amma et al. (USPGPN 2013/0175987) and Yasuzawa (Japanese Publication JP 2016112919 A – published 2016).
Regarding Claim 1, Stockinger (Fig.1) teaches a charging control device comprising:
a contact-type automatic charger (14) arranged under a floor (¶0074: underbody of the vehicle) and having an opening that opens to an outer surface of a vehicle body (Fig.1: the underbody of the vehicle is open to an outer surface of the vehicle body); and
a heating unit (29) which heats the contact-type automatic charger.
Stockinger fails to explicitly teach a protective cover that opens and closes the opening;
a cooling water circuit that cools at least one of an internal combustion engine prime mover or an electric unit; and
a heating unit that is provided on a high water temperature path of the cooling water circuit and heats the contact-type automatic charger.
However, Amma (Fig.9) teaches a protective cover (63) that opens and closes an opening (64a) for a vehicle charger (32) arranged under a floor (¶0039: power receiving system is on the lower surface of the vehicle body).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Stockinger with Amma to include a protective cover for opening and closing an opening to a vehicle charger. Doing so helps prevent contamination of components of the vehicle charger such as adhesion of mud or the like, as evidenced by Amma (¶0013).
Lastly, Yasuzawa (Fig.3) teaches a cooling water circuit (90) that cools at least one of an internal combustion engine prime mover (22) or an electric unit; and
a heating unit (104) that is provided on a high water temperature path of the cooling water circuit (branch 104 is positioned after the engine 22 and therefore has higher water temperature due to heat exchanged with the engine) and heats a component (106) for the benefit of suppressing freezing of the component (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Stockinger with Yasuzawa to include a cooling water circuit that cools at least one of an internal combustion engine prime mover or an electric unit, and replacing the heating unit of Stockinger with a heating unit that is provided on a high water temperature path of the cooling water circuit and heats a vehicle charger. Doing so would provide the benefit of suppressing freezing of a vehicle component, in this case the vehicle charger, using the high water temperature path of the cooling water circuit, as evidenced by Yasuzawa.
Regarding Claim 3, Stockinger, as modified, further teaches wherein the heating unit includes a bypass path (Yasuzawa - Fig.3: 104) and in which hot water for cooling waste heat of the cooling water circuit flows (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above); and
a heat exchanger (Stockinger – heating unit 29 is exposed to the air and would exchange heat between outside air and the heating unit to warm air near the protective cover; Yasuzawa – branch flow path 104 is connected to grill shutter 106 therefore indicating the presence of a heat exchanger) that is provided in the bypass path, exchanges heat between outside air and hot water in the bypass path, and delivers warm air to the protective cover.
Stockinger, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except the heating unit is not provided on a front side of the vehicle body compared to the contact-type automatic charger. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to move the heating unit to a front side of the vehicle body, since applicant has not disclosed that the specific location solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the heating unit provided on a front side of the vehicle body instead of the back.
Regarding Claim 4, Stockinger further teaches a temperature sensor that detects temperature (Stockinger - ¶0120: heating is activated if the temperature is below freezing, indicating the presence of a temperature sensor),
a changeover switch (Yasuzawa – Fig.3:164) that is provided between a hot water passage in the cooling water circuit and the bypass path and causes a part of the hot water to flow in the bypass path, and
a processor that controls the changeover switch on a basis of a result of the detection of the temperature sensor (Yasuzawa – Fig.3:24).
Claim(s) 1 & 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patwardhan (USPGPN 2009/0011616), in view of Amma et al. (USPGPN 2013/0175987) and Yasuzawa (Japanese Publication JP 2016112919 A – published 2016).
Regarding Claim 1, Patwardhan (Fig.6) teaches a charging control device comprising:
a contact-type automatic charger (13) arranged under a floor (Fig.5) and having an opening that opens to an outer surface of a vehicle body (Fig.5: the underbody of the vehicle is open to an outer surface of the vehicle body); and
a heating unit (¶0050: heating elements embedded in the conducting arrays) which heats the contact-type automatic charger.
Stockinger fails to explicitly teach a protective cover that opens and closes the opening;
a cooling water circuit that cools at least one of an internal combustion engine prime mover or an electric unit; and
a heating unit that is provided on a high water temperature path of the cooling water circuit and heats the contact-type automatic charger.
However, Amma (Fig.9) teaches a protective cover (63) that opens and closes an opening (64a) for a vehicle charger (32) arranged under a floor (¶0039: power receiving system is on the lower surface of the vehicle body).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Patwardhan with Amma to include a protective cover for opening and closing an opening to a vehicle charger. Doing so helps prevent contamination of components of the vehicle charger such as adhesion of mud or the like, as evidenced by Amma (¶0013).
Lastly, Yasuzawa (Fig.3) teaches a cooling water circuit (90) that cools at least one of an internal combustion engine prime mover (22) or an electric unit; and
a heating unit (104) that is provided on a high water temperature path of the cooling water circuit (branch 104 is positioned after the engine 22 and therefore has higher water temperature due to heat exchanged with the engine) and heats a component (106) for the benefit of suppressing freezing of the component (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Patwardhan with Yasuzawa to include a cooling water circuit that cools at least one of an internal combustion engine prime mover or an electric unit, and replacing the heating unit of Patwardhan with a heating unit that is provided on a high water temperature path of the cooling water circuit and heats a vehicle charger. Doing so would provide the benefit of suppressing freezing of a vehicle component, in this case the vehicle charger, using the high water temperature path of the cooling water circuit, as evidenced by Yasuzawa.
Regarding Claim 2, Patwardhan, as modified, further teaches herein the heating unit includes a bypass path (Yasuzawa - Fig.3: 104) which passes through a part of the contact-type automatic charger (Patwardhan - ¶0050: heating elements embedded in the conducting arrays) and in which hot water for cooling waste heat of the cooling water circuit flows (Yasuzawa - branch 104 is positioned after the engine 22 and therefore has higher water temperature due to heat exchanged with the engine).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hiramitsu et al. (USPGPN 2017/0365901) teaches a heating system for a vehicle fuel cell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights