DETAILED ACTION
1. This is the first action on the merits relating to U.S. Application Serial No. 18/388,102 filed on November 8, 2023. Currently claims 1-19 remain in the examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Applicant’s claiming benefit of US provisional application is acknowledged.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to because the original drawings of November 8, 2023 and replacement drawings filed on January 22, 2024 are gray and not clear. Clarity improved replacement drawings are required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0072180 A1 to WU et al. (hereinafter “WU”).
Regarding claim 1, WU discloses an apparatus for charging an extra low voltage battery 130 comprising a power converter 128 which converts the high voltage DC output to a low volage for the low voltage battery (see paragraph 0013); and a communication translator 132 which interfaces with an external source such as EVSE 138 and controls the power supply to the proper volage and current levels to the traction battery, which in turn provides the power to the low voltage battery 130.
Regarding claim 2, the apparatus comprising the power converter 128 and the communication translator 132 are disposed within the equipment, the vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, the power converter 128 is a DC/DC converter (see figure 1 and paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 6, EVSE connector 140 is connected to the chare port 134 connected to the power conversion module 132 which detects the connection and generate wake-up signal (see figure 1 and paragraph 0029).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the charge port 134 can be a part of the power conversion module 132 is configured to connect to the EVSE (see figure 1 and paragraph 0014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0072180 A1 to WU et al. in view of US 2024/0083289 A1 to Bennett et al. (hereinafter “Bennett”).
The teachings of WU have been discussed above.
WU, however, fails to disclose or suggest that apparatus as recited in claim 1 is placed outside of the device (or vehicle).
Bennet discloses a system and methods for charging electric vehicle (see abstract) and the system diagram is better shown in figure 3. As shown in the figure, a control system exists in both vehicle side 310 and charger side 350. The control system on the charger side includes connector, control circuitry, and user interface and connector (see figure 3 and paragraph 0040).
It is the Examiner’s position that control system is required on the both sides of the electric charging – vehicle and charging station. Perhaps, the actual components of the control system may not be identical. However, a control system as shown in Bennett clearly show that the charging station requires control system controlling the charger.
12. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0072180 A1 to WU et al. in view of US 2024/0128849 A1 to AMMANAMANCHI et al. (hereinafter “AMMANAMANCHI”).
The teachings of WU have been discussed above.
WU, however, fails to disclose or suggest that the power converter of the apparatus comprises one of LLC, Half bridge, Resonant half bridge, Full bridge, Forward, Fly-back or Non-isolated Buck.
AMMANAMANCHI discloses a vehicle charging system for charging low voltage battery (see abstract) wherein the DC/DC converter includes full bridge driver (see paragraphs 0046 0079 and 0080).
WU is silent on the actual circuitry of the converter, and full-bridge driver or half-bridge driver (see AMMANAMANCHI paragraph 0043) is very common component in the DC/DC or AC/DC converter. Using the above-mentioned circuitry is well within one ordinary skill in the art would contemplate.
13. Claims 9-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0072180 A1 to WU et al. in view of US 2024/0308359 A1 to Lee (hereinafter “Lee”).
The teachings of WU have been discussed above.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, WU, however, fails to disclose or suggest the apparatus includes a receptacle is in conformity with one or more standards: NACS, J1772 combo, CCS1 or CCS2.
Lee discloses a charger couple locking system and control logic for charging vehicle (see abstract and figure 1) wherein the electrical connector uses CCS1- compatible socket (see paragraphs 0027 and 0028)
Regarding claims 10 and 19, WU, however, fails to disclose or suggest that power source provides the electrical power having a voltage greater than or equal to 200 Volts.
Lee discloses a charger couple locking system and control logic for charging vehicle (see abstract and figure 1) wherein the charging station provides 120 to 480 Volts current (see paragraph 0027).
In view of Lee’s disclosure, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to employe well-known features of charging electrical vehicles such as receptacle standard and voltage range to the teachings of WU in order to design the system with acceptable standard so that vehicle charging is easier. WU is silent on these two elements, however, it would not be surprising if WU already use high voltage over 200V and one of receptacle standards shown in Lee.
Regarding claim 11, WU discloses that the voltage for the low-volage battery 130 is charged with 12Volts (see WU paragraph 0013) which is less than 120 Volts.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation of these claim is combination of claims 1, 10, and 11, which are disclosed by WU and Lee.
Regarding claim 13, the apparatus comprising the power converter 128 and the communication translator 132 are disposed within the equipment, the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, EVSE connector 140 is connected to the chare port 134 connected to the power conversion module 132 which detects the connection and generate wake-up signal (see WU figure 1 and paragraph 0029).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the charge port 134 can be a part of the power conversion module 132 is configured to connect to the EVSE (see figure 1 and paragraph 0014).
14. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0072180 A1 to WU et al. as modified by US 2024/0308359 A1 to Lee and further in view of US 2024/0083289 A1 to Bennett et al. (hereinafter “Bennett”).
See the description for claim 3 above.
15. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0072180 A1 to WU et al. as modified by US 2024/0308359 A1 to Lee and further in view of US 2024/0128849 A1 to AMMANAMANCHI et al.
See the description for claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The pertinent prior arts made of record but not relied are listed in the attached form PTO-892. These are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is respectfully suggested to carefully review these references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ahshik Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-2393. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday thru Friday. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571)273-2393.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham, can be reached on (571)272-3689. The fax phone number for this Group is (571)273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [ahshik.kim@uspto.gov].
PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AHSHIK KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights