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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/373,565 filed on 09/27/2023 in which claims 1-20 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2023 has been considered and put on record. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
Specification
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 9, the limitations of, “The charging port assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein: both the first flap and the second flap are moveable to a first open position and a second open position, when in the first open position, the first and second flaps have rotated about the axis by a first angle, and when in the second open position, the first and second flaps have rotated about the by a second angle greater than the first angle” should and would read for examination purpose -- The charging port assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein: both the first flap and the second flap are moveable to a first open position and a second open position, when in the first open position, the first and second flaps have rotated about the axis by a first angle, and when in the second open position, the first and second flaps have rotated about the axis by a second angle greater than the first angle --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2,5,9,17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cretin US 2023/0191926 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 17: Cretin at least discloses and shows in Figs. 3A-3C and 5B-5E: A charging port assembly(see Fig. 3B) for an electrified vehicle(10)(see Figs. 1, 2A-2B), comprising: a charging port(12)(see [0043]) configured to couple to a plug(18) to charge the electrified vehicle(10); a first flap(14a) moveable between a closed position(see Fig. 5E) and at least one open position(see Fig. 5D) by movement about an axis adjacent a top of the charging port; and a second flap(14b) moveable between a closed position(see Figs. 5E) and at least one open position(see Fig. 5D) by movement about the axis(note-The charging connector 16 and cover panel 14 may pivot relative to the panel of the vehicle about any suitably oriented pivot axis, such as a horizontal pivot axis (where the charging connector is oriented vertically and directed at least partially downward at the side of the vehicle when in the stowed and charging positions) or a vertical pivot axis (where the charging connector is oriented horizontally and directed along the side of the vehicle when in the stowed and charging positions; see [0048] and Figs. 20A,21A and 40).
Regarding claim 2, Cretin discloses, wherein: the first flap(14a) is configured to cover a first portion of the charging port(12) when in the closed position(see Figs. 4C,5D), and the second flap(14b) is configured to cover a second portion of the charging port(12) when in the closed position(see Fig. 4D,5E).
Regarding claim 5, Cretin discloses, wherein: when both the first(14a/114a) and second flaps(14b) are in the respective closed positions(Figs. 6A,10A,21A), movement of the second flap(14b/114b) to the at least one open position results in corresponding movement of the first flap(14a) such that both the first(14a) and second portions(14b) of the charging port(12) are exposed (see Figs. 6B,6C,11A,20A).
Regarding claim 9, Cretin discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Cretin further discloses, wherein: both the first flap(14a) and the second flap(14b) are moveable to a first open position(see Figs. 3B,5E) and a second open position(see Figs. 3C,5D), when in the first open position, the first and second flaps have rotated about the axis by a first angle(see Fig. 3C), and when in the second open position(see Fig. 3B), the first and second flaps have rotated about the axis by a second angle greater than the first angle(note-the angle between 14a and 16 is grater in Fig. 3B(second open position) than in the first position as shown in Fig. 3C)(see [0058]).
Regarding claim 18, Cretin discloses, wherein: when the first flap(14a) is in the at least one open position and the second flap(14b) is in the closed position(see Fig, 3C), a first portion of the charging port is exposed(see Fig. 3C), and when both the first and second flaps are in respective at least one open positions(see Fig. 3B), the first portion of the charging port and a second portion of the charging port are exposed(see Fig. 3B).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 6-8,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretin US 2023/0191926 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 18 above in view of Hetrich et al., (Hetrich) US 2022/0379758 .
Regarding claim 6, Cretin discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Cretin does not expressly teach the limitations of:
wherein the first portion of the charging port is configured to couple to a first type of standard charging plug, and the combined first and second portions of the charging port are configured to couple to a second type of standard charging plug different than the first type of standard charging plug.
Hetrich teaches and shows in Fig. 3, factual evidence of, wherein the first portion(310) of the charging port is configured to couple to a first type of standard charging plug((SAE) J1772), and the combined first and second portions((300)[Wingdings font/0xE0](310,320)) of the charging port are configured to couple to a second type of standard charging plug(combined charging system (CCS)) different than the first type of standard charging plug(see [0047]-[0048]).
Cretin and Hetrich are electric vehicle charging systems analogous art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cretin with Hetrich by having, wherein the first portion of the charging port is configured to couple to a first type of standard charging plug, and the combined first and second portions of the charging port are configured to couple to a second type of standard charging plug different than the first type of standard charging plug, as recited, so as to provide both AC charging and DC fast charging in absence of AC power.
Accordingly claim 6 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Cretin in view of Hetrich discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 6. Hetrich teaches, wherein the first type of standard charging plug(310) is an SAE J1772 plug([0047]), and the second type of standard charging plug(320) is a Combined Charging System plug([0047]).
Regarding claim 8, Cretin in view of Hetrich discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Cretin does not expressly discloses the limitations of:
wherein the second portion of the charging port includes pins configured to permit DC fast-charging.
Hetrich teaches and shows in Fig. 3, factual evidence of, wherein the second portion of the charging port(320) includes pins(305) configured to permit DC fast-charging(see [0047]-[0049]).
Cretin and Hetrich are electric vehicle charging systems analogous art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cretin with Hetrich by having, wherein the second portion of the charging port includes pins configured to permit DC fast-charging, as recited, for the advantages of providing charge to the storage system (e.g., batteries) of the electric vehicle using either AC or DC power, as per the teachings of Hetrich ([0048]).
Accordingly claim 8 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Cretin discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Cretin does not expressly teach the limitations of:
further comprising: coupling a first type of standard charging plug to the first portion of the charging port when the first flap is in the at least one open position and the second flap is in the closed position, and coupling a second type of standard charging plug to the first and second portions of the charging port when both the first and second flaps are in respective at least one open positions, wherein the second type of standard charging plug is different than the first type of standard charging plug.
Hetrich teaches and shows in Fig. 3, factual evidence of, further comprising: coupling a first type of standard charging plug to the first portion of the charging port(310) when the first flap is in the at least one open position and the second flap is in the closed position, and coupling a second type of standard charging plug(320) to the first and second portions of the charging port when both the first and second flaps are in respective at least one open positions, wherein the second type of standard charging plug(DC fast charging) is different than the first type of standard charging plug(SAE J1772 plug which is for Level 1 and Level 2 electric vehicle charging)([0047]-[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cretin with Hetrich by having, further comprising: coupling a first type of standard charging plug to the first portion of the charging port when the first flap is in the at least one open position and the second flap is in the closed position, and coupling a second type of standard charging plug to the first and second portions of the charging port when both the first and second flaps are in respective at least one open positions, wherein the second type of standard charging plug is different than the first type of standard charging plug, as recited, in order to provide both AC charging and DC fast charging in absence of AC power, as per the teachings of Hetrich ([0048]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cretin US 2023/0191926 A1
Regarding claim 10, Cretin discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose the limitations of, wherein the first angle is about 90⁰ to 135⁰. Instead, Cretin discloses, that the wand 118 may have a charge port connecting portion (that electrically connects to the charge port connector) that is at an angle of less 120 degrees relative to a cable connecting portion (that has the charging cable extending therefrom, such as in a generally downward direction as shown in FIG. 8), or such as less than 100 degrees, or such as about 90-100 degrees(see [0058]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have, wherein the first angle is about 90⁰ to 135⁰, as recited, since such modification was obvious to try and achieve the predictable result of prolonging the battery life by decreasing the current applying to the battery, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Accordingly claim 10 would have been obvious.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretin US 2023/0191926 A1 in view of Zhang et al., (Zhang) CN 116353414 A(Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 20, Cretin discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 17. Cretin does not expressly teach:
further comprising: heating the charging port either continuously or based on an expected return time of a user.
However, Zhang factually teach factual evidence of, heating the charging port either continuously or based on an expected return time of a user(Note- the heating module is connected with the power supply management module and the charging port, the heating module is used for heating the battery according to the power detection signal)
Cretin and Zhang are electric vehicle power supply analogous arts. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Cretin with Zhang by having, the method further comprising: heating the charging port either continuously or based on an expected return time of a user, as recited, so as to solve the problem that the battery due to low temperature discharge causes the shortening of the endurance mileage and thereby improving the driving range of the vehicle.
Accordingly claim 20 would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4,11-16 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.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record either taken or in combination thereof fails to teach or reasonably suggest, wherein: the first flap is moveable to the at least one open position independent of the second flap such that, when the first flap is in the at least one open position and the second flap is in the closed position, the first portion of the charging port is exposed and the second flap covers the second portion of the charging port.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record either taken or in combination thereof fails to teach or reasonably suggest, wherein: the first and second flaps are each coupled to respective arm, each respective arm extends from the axis to a respective one of the first and second flaps, each respective arm includes a first notch corresponding to the first open position and a second notch corresponding to the second open position, a rod is biased toward the first and second notches, and when the first and second flaps are in the first or second open positions, the rod is configured to enter a corresponding notch to hold the first and second flaps in the corresponding first or second open positions.
Regarding claim 15, patentability exists at least in part with the claimed limitations of, further comprising: a controller; and a current source, wherein the controller is configured to selectively direct current to a heater to heat the charging port, and wherein the controller is configured to selectively direct current to the heater based on a first heater control technique or a second heater control technique.
Claim 4 depend directly from claim 3 and thus is also allowed for the same reasons.
Claims 12-14 depend directly from claim 11 and therefore are allowed for the same reasons.
Claim 16 depend directly from claim 15 and thus is also allowed for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 June 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights