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
Applicant’s response and amendment dated 9/16/26 are acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-9, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiber (US 2021/0006010, previously cited) in view of Cao (US 2017/0259678).1 Regarding claims 1, 13 and 20, Schreiber teaches an electric vehicle charging system and a charging port system comprising: a charging port disposed on an electric vehicle, the charging port including: a receptacle configured to connect to a plug of an external electric vehicle charging station, the receptacle electrically connected to a battery charger of the electric vehicle (paragraph 0055: receptacle); a charging tray on which the receptacle is disposed, wherein the charging tray is controllably moveable by the electric vehicle (paragraph 0034) between a stored position within a body of the electric vehicle and a charging position where the receptacle is exposed from the body of the vehicle to receive the plug of the external electric vehicle charging station (paragraph 0055: stowage position). Schreiber does not explicitly teach where the charging tray is extended beyond the body of the electric vehicle to expose the receptacle. Cao teaches where the charging tray is extended beyond the body of the electric vehicle to expose the receptacle (paragraph 0040: extending in the longitudinal direction, see also paragraph 0028 defining “longitudinally” as “outward from the front…of the vehicle”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Schreiber and Cao, because such a combination aids in charging the vehicle when the charger is not on the side of the vehicle (paragraph 0023 of Cao). Regarding claim 2, Schreiber further teaches the receptacle is disposed in a horizontal position when the charging tray is in the charging position (paragraph 0066, see also orientation in Fig. 4). Regarding claim 3, Schreiber further teaches the receptacle comprises a plug type connector (paragraph 0062: charging plug). Regarding claim 4, Schreiber further teaches the plug type connector comprises a J1772 type connector (Figs. 2-3). Regarding claims 5 and 17, Schreiber further teaches the receptacle comprises a surface type connector having surface contacts (paragraph 0063). Regarding claim 6, Schreiber further teaches the charging port is disposed such that the charging tray extends from a front of the electric vehicle (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 7, Schreiber further teaches the charging port is disposed such that the charging tray extends from a rear of the electric vehicle (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 8, Schreiber further teaches the charging port is disposed such that the charging tray extends from a side of the electric vehicle (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 9, Schreiber further teaches the charging port is disposed on an underside of the electric vehicle (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 14, Schreiber further teaches the charging tray extends beyond a perimeter of a body of the electric vehicle when in the charging position (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 15, Schreiber further teaches the receptacle is electrically connected in parallel with a second charging port of the electric vehicle (Figs. 2-3). Regarding claim 16, Schreiber further teaches the receptacle is a plug-type receptacle for a male-female type connection (Figs. 2-3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiber in view of Cao and in further view of Choi (US 2020/0144831, previously cited).2 Regarding claim 10, Schreiber in view of Cao teaches the charging system of claim 1, as discussed above. Schreiber in view of Cao does not explicitly teach the charging port includes a cleaning mechanism that cleans debris from the charging tray and receptacle when the charging is moved between the stored and charging positions. Choi teaches the charging port includes a cleaning mechanism that cleans debris from the charging tray and receptacle when the charging is moved between the stored and charging positions (paragraph 0032). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Schreiber in view of Cao and Choi, because such a combination reduces damage (paragraph 0003 of Choi).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiber in view of Cao and in further view of Witters (US 2023/0079648, previously cited).3 Regarding claim 18, Schreiber in view of Cao teaches the charging port system of claim 17, as discussed above. Schreiber in view of Cao does not explicitly teach the surface type receptacle includes magnetic contacts for securing to the charging station plug. Witters teaches the surface type receptacle includes magnetic contacts for securing to the charging station plug (paragraph 0031). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Schreiber in view of Cao and Witters, because such a combination aids in establishing a robust connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 are allowed.4
Claim 19 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New reference Cao has been used to teach the newly added limitations. See above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:30 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET, Friday 7:30 AM ET - 9:30 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.5
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
1 In addition to the cited portions of each reference, please see also the associated figures.
2 In addition to the cited paragraphs, please see also the associated figures.
3 In addition to the cited paragraphs, please see also the associated figures.
4 A full discussion of reasons for allowance will be given once all claims are disposed.
5 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.
