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 .
Claims 1-10 were previously pending. Claims 11-20 were added by preliminary amendment.1 Claims 1-20 are now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-?? are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schreiber, et al. (US 2021/0006010, herein Schreiber).2 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 moveable 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). Regarding claim 2, Schreiber 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 teaches the receptacle comprises a plug type connector (paragraph 0062: charging plug). Regarding claim 4, Schreiber teaches the plug type connector comprises a J1772 type connector (Figs. 2-3). Regarding claims 5 and 17, Schreiber teaches the receptacle comprises a surface type connector having surface contacts (paragraph 0063). Regarding claim 6, Schreiber 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 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 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 teaches the charging port is disposed on an underside of the electric vehicle (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 14, Schreiber 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 teaches the receptacle is electrically connected in parallel with a second charging port of the electric vehicle (Figs. 2-3). Regarding claim 16, Schreiber teaches the receptacle is a plug-type receptacle for a male-female type connection (Figs. 2-3).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiber in view of Choi, et al. (US 2020/0144831, herein Choi).3 Regarding claim 10, Schreiber teaches the charging system of claim 1, as discussed above. Schreiber 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 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 Witters (US 2023/0079648).4 Regarding claim 18, Schreiber teaches the charging port system of claim 17, as discussed above. Schreiber 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 and Witters, because such a combination aids in establishing a robust connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 and 19 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.
Conclusion
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 - 11:30 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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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 See Preliminary Amendment dated 1/30/24.
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 In addition to the cited paragraphs, please see also the associated figures.
5 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.
Prosecution Insights