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 .
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 12 and 18 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.
Claim 12 recites “the lock mechanism” but depends directly from claim 9, which does not introduce a lock mechanism. Claim 12 appears intended to depend from claim 11.
Claim 18 recites “the mode selection actuator,” but claim 17 introduces only a “mode selection mechanism,” not a mode selection actuator. These limitations lack clear antecedent basis and should be considered for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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, 2, 7, 8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Westfall et al., US 2025/0249766 A1.
Regarding claim 1; Westfall teaches a holster arrangement for use with an EV charging station, the holster arrangement being structured to secure a J1772 connector in place when the J1772 connector is not being used for charging.
Westfall discloses an EVSE 10 having an EVSE connector 12, an adapter 14, and a dock 16. The dock 16 provides a receptacle for receiving the adapter 14, and, in the AC embodiment, the dock is integral with the EVSE. The adapter and connector may remain docked to the EVSE when not being used for charging. See Westfall, FIGS. 8–11 and ¶¶ [0067]–[0072], [0094]–[0098].
Westfall teaches a base and a cradle extending from the base. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the portion of EVSE 10 supporting the integral dock 16 constitutes the claimed base, and dock 16 including its receptacle for receiving adapter 14 constitutes the claimed cradle extending from the base. See Westfall, FIGS. 8, 10, and 11A–11B; ¶¶ [0072], [0098], and [0101]–[0103].
Westfall teaches an adapter structured to be coupled to a charging interface of the J1772 connector.” Adapter 14 includes a first coupling 22 configured to receive the first connector 20 of EVSE connector 12. Westfall expressly identifies SAE J1772 as one of the protocols that EVSE connector 12 may satisfy and identifies an AC “J1772/NACS” interprotocol adapter embodiment. See Westfall, FIGS. 8–10; ¶¶ [0068]–[0070], [0073]–[0074], and [0094]–[0100].
Westfall teaches that the adapter comprises a J1772 interface; and a non-J1772 interface disposed opposite the J1772 interface.” First coupling 22 and second coupling 24 are located on opposite ends of adapter body 18. One coupling receives EVSE connector 12, while the other coupling engages the charging inlet of a vehicle using a different charging protocol. Westfall expressly lists SAE J1772 and multiple non-J1772 protocols, including NACS, CCS1, CCS2, IEC Type 2, GB/T, CHAdeMO, and ChaoJi, and states that the illustrated protocol labels are exemplary and that adaptation may be performed between other disclosed protocols. See Westfall ¶¶ [0070], [0073]–[0075], [0096]–[0100]; FIG. 9.
Thus, selecting SAE J1772 as the protocol of EVSE connector 12 and any one of the expressly identified different protocols as the vehicle-side protocol constitutes one of the limited and expressly delineated combinations that a skilled artisan would at once envisage. The resulting first coupling is the claimed J1772 interface, and the oppositely disposed second coupling is the claimed non-J1772 interface.
Westfall teaches wherein the cradle and the adapter are structured to ensure that the adapter is always locked into either a first state or a second state. Westfall expressly states that the locking mechanism is designed so that adapter 14 can only ever be locked onto the handle or onto the EVSE, thereby preventing theft. Westfall further teaches a first lock for selectively locking the adapter to connector 12 and a second lock for selectively locking the adapter to dock 16. See Westfall ¶¶ [0057], [0061]–[0063], [0081]–[0088], and [0094]–[0103].
Westfall teaches wherein, in the first state, the adapter is seated in and locked into the cradle. Adapter 14 is received in dock 16 and is selectively locked to the dock by second lock 28(B). In the AC embodiment, actuator 72 locks the adapter to dock 16. See Westfall, FIGS. 8 and 10–11B; ¶¶ [0072], [0085]–[0088], and [0101]–[0103].
Westfall teaches wherein, in the second state, the adapter is locked onto the J1772 connector. First lock 28(A) selectively locks adapter 14 to EVSE connector 12. Westfall further teaches that the adapter can be removed from the dock only when locked to connector 12. See Westfall ¶¶ [0069], [0081]–[0084], and [0095], and FIGS. 9–10.
Westfall teaches wherein the adapter is structured to enable an electric vehicle with a non-J1772 charging port to be charged by the J1772 connector when the adapter is coupled to the J1772 connector. Adapter 14 converts between the first protocol of EVSE connector 12 and the different protocol of second coupling 24. Second coupling 24 is inserted into the vehicle charging port so that the vehicle is charged using the second protocol. Westfall expressly discloses interprotocol adaptation and expressly lists SAE J1772 and multiple non-J1772 protocols as available protocol selections. See Westfall ¶¶ [0070], [0073]–[0076], [0096]–[0100].
Regarding claim 2; Westfall teaches wherein the cradle and the adapter are structured such that the adapter can only be removed from the cradle if the adapter is locked onto the J1772 connector.
Westfall expressly states that adapter 14 is configured to stay locked to EVSE 10 and can only be removed from the EVSE 10 by the user if the adapter 14 is locked to the EVSE connector 12.” Westfall further teaches that the adapter is locked to first connector 20 when removed from the dock. See Westfall ¶¶ [0069] and [0095]; FIGS. 8–10.
Regarding claim 7; Westfall teaches “an EV charging station for charging electric vehicles” comprising “a J1772 connector configured to charge electric vehicles.”
Westfall discloses EVSE 10, which may be implemented as a public or residential charging station, and EVSE connector 12 for charging plug-in electric vehicles. Westfall expressly identifies SAE J1772 as one of the protocols satisfied by EVSE connector 12 and expressly describes an AC J1772/NACS adapter implementation. See Westfall ¶¶ [0067]–[0070], [0094]–[0097]; FIG. 8.
Westfall further teaches the recited holster arrangement including the base, cradle/dock 16, adapter 14, oppositely disposed first and second interfaces, and the two mutually exclusive locked states for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1. Adapter 14 is either locked to dock 16 or locked to EVSE connector 12, and adapter 14 permits the connector to charge a vehicle using a different, non-J1772 charging protocol. See Westfall ¶¶ [0057], [0061]–[0063], [0067]–[0075], and [0094]–[0103]; FIGS. 8–11B.
Regarding claim 8; Westfall expressly teaches that adapter 14 “can only be removed from the EVSE 10 by the user if the adapter 14 is locked to the EVSE connector 12.” Thus, adapter 14 can only be removed from dock/cradle 16 when adapter 14 is locked to the J1772 connector selected from Westfall’s expressly disclosed connector protocols. See Westfall ¶¶ [0069] and [0095].
Regarding claim 15; Westfall teaches an adapter for use with a holster arrangement of an EV charging station. Adapter 14 is used with EVSE 10 and dock 16 and includes a first coupling 22 and a second coupling 24 corresponding to different charging protocols. The couplings are disposed on opposite ends of adapter body 18. See Westfall ¶¶ [0067]–[0075], [0094]–[0100]; FIGS. 8–10.
Westfall teaches “a J1772 interface; and a non-J1772 interface disposed opposite the J1772 interface” because SAE J1772 is expressly listed as an available protocol for EVSE connector 12, while second coupling 24 corresponds to a different selected protocol. Westfall specifically identifies the AC adapter as a J1772/NACS interprotocol adapter, while also stating that the illustrated labels are exemplary and the disclosed locking adapter may be used with the other identified protocol combinations. See Westfall ¶¶ [0096]–[0100].
Westfall teaches that adapter 14 cooperates with dock 16 so that it is always locked into one of two states: locked to dock 16 or locked to EVSE connector 12. Westfall expressly states that the adapter “can only ever be locked onto the handle or onto the EVSE.” First lock 28(A) locks adapter 14 to connector 12, and second lock 28(B) locks adapter 14 to dock 16. See Westfall ¶¶ [0057], [0061]–[0063], and [0094]–[0103].
Westfall further teaches that adapter 14 converts the first charging protocol to a different second charging protocol and enables EVSE connector 12 to charge a vehicle having the second-protocol charging port. See Westfall ¶¶ [0073]–[0076] and [0099]–[0100].
Regarding claim 16; Westfall teaches that adapter 14 is configured to stay locked to EVSE/dock 16 and can only be removed from the EVSE 10 by the user if the adapter 14 is locked to the EVSE connector 12. See Westfall ¶¶ [0069] and [0095].
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 3, 4, 9, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Westfall et al. (US 2025/0249766 A1) in view of Litteer et al. (US 2010/0124856 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Westfall teaches further teaches a cradle or dock 16 having a lock-transfer mechanism controlled by actuator 72 and motor 80. Westfall’s control unit permits the user to select between use of the native charging connector and use of the adapter, and the selection may be entered through a physical button. Westfall further teaches switches and sensors for determining the states of the connector, adapter, and dock and for ensuring that the adapter is securely locked to the connector before use. See Westfall ¶¶ [Par 0102-7]; FIGS. 8–11B.
Westfall therefore teaches or suggests:
“wherein the cradle further comprises a mode selection mechanism,”
because actuator 72, motor 80, the control unit, and associated physical user input collectively form a mechanism for selecting whether the native J1772 connector is used without the adapter or whether the non-J1772 adapter is transferred to the connector.
Westfall teaches or suggests:
“wherein the mode selection mechanism comprises a mode selection actuator that can be actuated between a J1772 setting and a non-J1772 setting,”
because actuator 72 moves between:
A first position in which the adapter is locked to the dock and the J1772 connector is available for native J1772 use; and
A second position in which the adapter is released from the dock and locked to the connector for non-J1772 use.
Westfall does not expressly teach the full conditional mechanical interlock recited in:
“wherein the cradle and the adapter are structured such that the mode selection actuator can only be actuated from the J1772 setting to the non-J1772 setting if the adapter is seated in and locked into the cradle and if the J1772 connector is coupled to the adapter.”
Litteer teaches preventing a selector or locking plate from being actuated unless the proper mating plug is fully inserted and depresses a spring-biased lockout key. See Litteer, Abstract; FIGS. 1A–1E and 3A–3C.
It would have been obvious to configure Westfall’s actuator-enable circuit or actuator mechanism with two serial conditions: Adapter-presence/adapter-lock confirmation; and
Connector-in-adapter confirmation as taught by Litteer in order to securely couple the non-J1772 to the J1772 connector
(Please note
Westfall already teaches sensing the handle, adapter, and dock states, including determining whether the connector is inserted into the adapter. See Westfall ¶¶ [0062], [0089]–[0093]. Litteer supplies the known interlocking technique that makes selector movement conditional upon proper physical mating.
Westfall further teaches: “wherein the mode selection mechanism and the adapter are structured such that setting the mode selection actuator to the non-J1772 setting locks the adapter onto the J1772 connector.”
Specifically, rotation of actuator 72 toward its adapter-release position moves magnet 76 away from magnet 74, permitting latch 70 to rotate to its spring-biased locked position and lock the adapter to the connector. At the same time, actuator 72 releases the adapter from the dock. See Westfall ¶¶ [0101]–[0104]; FIGS. 10–11B. The combination clearly teaches the claimed limitation)
Regarding claim 4; the combination of Westfall and Litteer teaches wherein the mode selection mechanism is structured such that, when the mode selection actuator is actuated to the non-J1772 setting such that the adapter gets locked onto the J1772 connector and the J1772 connector with the locked-on adapter is removed from cradle, the mode selection actuator cannot be actuated out of the non-J1772 setting.
Westfall teaches that when the adapter is removed from the dock: The adapter is already locked to the connector; Locking pin 47 is passively moved by spring 41 into a position blocking lip 49;
Latch 32 is thereby prevented from disengaging from receiver 30; and
Locking pin 47 is retracted only when the adapter is again docked and acted upon by the dock magnets. See Westfall ¶¶ [0086]–[0088].
Litteer also teaches that when the proper mating plug is absent, a spring-biased sliding key moves to a blocking position and prevents the selector or locking plate from rotating. The selector is therefore immobilized in response to removal or absence of the mating component. See Litteer, Abstract; FIGS. 1A–1E and 3A–3C.
It would have been obvious to arrange the adapter or connector-adapter pair as the component that holds Litteer’s lockout key in its selector-releasing position. When the connector-adapter pair is removed from Westfall’s cradle, the key would return under spring force to its blocking position and prevent movement of the cradle actuator from the non-J1772 state. When the connector-adapter pair is returned to the cradle, insertion would again depress the key and permit mode-selector movement.
Regarding claim 9; Westfall teaches the EV charging station and holster arrangement of claim 8 for the reasons previously stated. Westfall further teaches actuator 72, motor 80, control circuitry, physical user selection, connector/adapter/dock state sensors, and transfer of adapter 14 from dock 16 to connector 12. See Westfall ¶¶ [0060]–[0063] and [0094]–[0104]; FIGS. 8–11B.
Litteer teaches making selector movement conditional upon proper plug insertion by using a sliding key that blocks selector rotation until depressed by the proper mating plug.
It would therefore have been obvious to provide Westfall’s cradle with a mode-selection actuator having: A J1772 setting corresponding to the adapter being locked in the cradle;
A non-J1772 setting corresponding to the adapter being locked to the connector;
An interlock preventing movement to the non-J1772 setting unless the adapter is present and locked and the connector is inserted; and A mechanical or electronic connection causing actuation to the non-J1772 position to lock the adapter to the connector to provide a secured connection.
Regarding claim 10; Westfall teaches a spring-biased third lock that maintains the adapter-to-connector lock when the pair is removed from the dock. Litteer teaches a spring-biased selector lockout that prevents selector rotation when the mating plug is absent.
It would have been obvious to use Litteer’s absence-responsive lockout in Westfall’s cradle so that removal of the connector-adapter pair causes the lockout key to block the actuator in the non-J1772 position. This would prevent a false mode change and would ensure that the cradle cannot be reset to the J1772 state while the J1772 connector remains physically coupled to the non-J1772 adapter.
Regarding claim 17; Westfall teaches an adapter that is transferred between:
A first state locked to the dock; and
A second state locked to the charging connector.
Westfall’s actuator 72 and motor 80 perform the lock-transfer operation. Westfall’s switches and sensors detect the state of the connector, adapter, and dock and are used to ensure that the adapter is fully locked before use. See Westfall ¶¶ [0057], [0060]–[0063], [0068]–[0069], and [0094]–[0104].
Litteer teaches preventing an actuator from moving unless the proper mating component is present.
It would therefore have been obvious to structure Westfall’s adapter and cradle so that the adapter can be actuated from the first state to the second state only when: The adapter is seated and locked in the cradle; and The J1772 connector is inserted into the adapter. The resulting structure would use Westfall’s existing state sensors and actuator together with Litteer’s known mating-component lockout. Accordingly, claim 17 would have been obvious over Westfall in view of Litteer.
Claims 5, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Westfall et al. (US 2025/0249766 A1) in view of Litteer et al. and further in view of Rodriguez-Najera et al. (US 2013/0337669 A1).
Regarding claim 5; Westfall and Litteer teach the subject matter of claim 3 as discussed above.
Westfall further teaches or suggests:
wherein the adapter comprises a lock mechanism structured to be actuated by the mode selection actuator such that actuating the mode selection actuator to the non-J1772 setting actuates the lock mechanism to an engaged position and such that actuating the mode selection actuator to the J1772 setting actuates the lock mechanism to a disengaged position.
Westfall’s actuator 72 and magnet 76 control latch 70. When actuator 72 is in the dock-locking position, the magnetic arrangement holds latch 70 away from its connector-locking position. When actuator 72 is rotated to release the adapter from the dock, magnet 76 moves away and latch 70 moves under spring force into the connector-locking position. See Westfall ¶¶ [0101]–[0104].
Westfall additionally teaches locking pin 47, which is passively moved to its engaged position when the adapter is undocked and blocks movement of lip 49, thereby preventing latch 32 from disengaging from receiver 30. See Westfall ¶¶ [0086]–[0088].
Westfall does not disclose wherein the lock mechanism is structured such that, when the lock mechanism is in the engaged position, the lock mechanism prevents a latch of the J1772 connector from moving forward out of the adapter.
Rodriguez-Najera teaches the remaining specific relationship:
wherein the lock mechanism is structured such that, when the lock mechanism is in the engaged position, the lock mechanism prevents a latch of the J1772 connector from moving forward out of the adapter.
Rodriguez-Najera’s advanced locking rod overlaps the upper portion of the J1772 latch and prevents the latch from moving upward sufficiently to clear the mating flange. Because the latch cannot clear the flange, the J1772 connector cannot move forward out of the mating receptacle or adapter. See Rodriguez-Najera ¶¶ [0032]–[0037]; FIGS. 4–9A.
It would have been obvious to mechanically couple Rodriguez-Najera’s locking rod to Westfall’s actuator 72 so that: Movement toward the non-J1772 setting drives or permits the rod to move to its engaged position; and Movement toward the J1772 setting retracts the rod to its disengaged position. A cam, linkage, solenoid, magnetic coupling, or linear output could have been used, all of which are consistent with the actuation techniques expressly contemplated by Westfall.
Regarding claim 11; Westfall and Litteer teach the EV charging station, holster arrangement, and mode-selection mechanism of claim 9.
Westfall teaches that actuator 72 changes the adapter between a dock-locked condition and a connector-locked condition. Rodriguez-Najera teaches an adapter-side or receptacle-side locking member that, in its advanced position, overlaps and blocks the J1772 connector latch.
It would have been obvious to actuate Rodriguez-Najera’s locking member using Westfall’s mode-selection actuator so that selection of the non-J1772 mode engages the latch blocker and selection of the J1772 mode disengages it. The modification would ensure that the adapter cannot be removed from the connector after the adapter has been released from the cradle.
Regarding claim 18; Westfall and Litteer teach the adapter and conditional lock-transfer operation of claim 17.
Westfall teaches actuator-controlled transfer of the adapter from the cradle to the connector, and Rodriguez-Najera teaches a movable lock member positioned to prevent a J1772 latch from clearing its mating engagement.
It would have been obvious to provide Westfall’s adapter with Rodriguez-Najera’s locking member and to couple that locking member to the cradle actuator. Actuation to the second state would place the locking member in the engaged position, and actuation to the first state would retract the member. In the engaged position, the member would prevent latch movement required for forward withdrawal of the J1772 connector.
Accordingly, claim 18 would have been obvious over Westfall in view of Litteer and Rodriguez-Najera.
Claims 6, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Westfall et al. (US 2025/0249766 A1) in view of Litteer et al. and Rodriguez-Najera et al., and further in view of Schroepfer (US 5,462,457).
Regarding claim 6; the combination of Westfall, Litteer, and Rodriguez-Najera teaches the subject matter of claim 5.
Westfall teaches: wherein the adapter comprises an overmold, or at least strongly suggests that construction because Westfall teaches that adapter body 18 and couplings 22 and 24 may be molded from plastic or polymer and expressly teaches an overmolded lock component. See Westfall ¶¶ [0074]–[0075] and [0081]–[0082].
Westfall teaches:
wherein the adapter comprises a J1772 section and the J1772 interface is included in the J1772 section, because Westfall expressly discloses a J1772/NACS interprotocol adapter and teaches that one coupling of the adapter is configured for the charging connector while the opposite coupling is configured for the alternative charging protocol. See Westfall ¶¶ [0094]–[0100].
Rodriguez-Najera teaches:
wherein the J1772 section has a circular profile with a latch receiver extending outward from the circular profile.
Rodriguez-Najera describes the standard J1772 connector and corresponding docking receptacle as having generally circular matching profiles. It also teaches a spring-loaded latch finger projecting from the top of the connector and a corresponding stationary latching element or flange extending from the mating receptacle. See Rodriguez-Najera ¶¶ [0031]–[0033]; FIGS. 3–5 and 8–10.
The outwardly extending stationary latching element forms or is located in the claimed latch receiver and receives the J1772 latch when the components are connected.
The combination does not disclose wherein the overmold surrounds a portion of the circular profile of the J1772 section and a portion of the latch receiver.
Schroepfer teaches:
Schroepfer further expressly teaches overmold 8 formed on connector housing 4 and surrounding or overlapping a projecting latch region.
wherein the overmold surrounds a portion of the circular profile of the J1772 section and a portion of the latch receiver.
Specifically, Schroepfer’s overmold adheres to and surrounds part of the connector housing while pocket 12 extends outwardly around and partially overlaps the projecting latch region. See Schroepfer, FIGS. 1–4; claims 1, 3, and 5.
The combination further renders obvious:
wherein the overmold comprises an extension portion that is structured to prevent the latch from moving far enough upward for an overhang of the latch to be positioned higher than the lock mechanism when the adapter is locked onto the J1772 connector.
Rodriguez-Najera teaches that preventing upward movement of the J1772 latch prevents the latch from clearing the stationary flange and prevents connector removal. Schroepfer teaches placing an overmold pocket wall above and around a movable latch. A person of ordinary skill would have positioned the lower surface of Schroepfer’s pocket or extension wall at a height that permits normal insertion of the J1772 latch but prevents the latch overhang from rising above Rodriguez-Najera’s locking member while the member is engaged.
The proposed dimension would not require a new operating principle. It would use Schroepfer’s known overmold wall as a mechanical travel stop to supplement Rodriguez-Najera’s known latch blocker. The result restricted upward latch travel would have been predictable.
Accordingly, claim 6 would have been obvious over Westfall in view of Litteer, Rodriguez-Najera, and Schroepfer.
Regarding claim 12; the cited references teach the claimed overmold, J1772 section, generally circular J1772 profile, outward latch-receiving structure, and overmold pocket surrounding the latch region for the reasons stated regarding claim 6.
Rodriguez-Najera teaches restricting upward latch movement with an advanced locking member, while Schroepfer teaches positioning an overmold wall above and around the latch. It would have been obvious to dimension the overmold extension so that the latch overhang could not rise above the locking mechanism when the adapter is locked to the J1772 connector in order to protect the connectors.
Accordingly, claim 12 would have been obvious over Westfall in view of Litteer, Rodriguez-Najera, and Schroepfer.
Regarding claim 19; Westfall and Litteer teach the adapter states and conditional transfer operation, and Rodriguez-Najera teaches the engaged locking member preventing J1772-latch release.
Schroepfer teaches an overmold surrounding a connector-housing portion and forming a projecting pocket around a movable latch. Rodriguez-Najera teaches the generally circular J1772 profile and projecting latch-receiving structure.
It would have been obvious to size Schroepfer’s extension wall so that the J1772 latch can enter the receiver but cannot rise sufficiently for its overhang to pass above the engaged lock mechanism. The motivation would have been to provide redundant mechanical retention and to prevent forced or accidental manipulation of the latch while the adapter is attached.
Accordingly, claim 19 would have been obvious over Westfall in view of Litteer, Rodriguez-Najera, and Schroepfer.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Westfall et al. (US 2025/0249766 A1) in view of Litteer et al., Rodriguez-Najera et al., and Schroepfer, and further in view of Kiko et al. (US 2012/0126747 A1).
Re Claim 13; The combination teaches wherein the J1772 connector includes a proximity-only switch.
The combination does not teach teaches wherein the proximity-only switch is configured such that actuation of the proximity-only switch changes a state of a proximity pin of the J1772 connector without actuating the latch.
Kiko expressly teaches that in first position 74:Switch means 48 changes the PROX connection to a high-resistance state; The vehicle controller detects the changed state and stops charging;
Latch 54 remains in its locked position; and The connector cannot yet be removed.
See Kiko, FIGS. 3B, 5–7; description of first depression position 74 and switch means 48.
Although Kiko illustrates the proximity-only operation as the first stage of a dual-stage actuator, separating that first-stage switch function into a dedicated proximity-only pushbutton would have been a predictable separation of two known functions. The electrical switch would continue changing the proximity state, while the mechanical latch actuator would continue releasing the latch.
The motivation for using a separate actuator would have been particularly strong in the combined system because the adapter overmold and locking member intentionally inhibit latch movement. A separate proximity-only actuator permits safe charging termination without attempting to lift the blocked latch.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Westfall et al. (US 2025/0249766 A1) in view of Litteer et al., Rodriguez-Najera et al., Schroepfer, and Kiko et al., and further in view of Jefferies et al. WO 2015016946 A1
Re Claim 14; the combination teaches:
“wherein the J1772 connector includes a latch/proximity switch in addition to the proximity-only switch.”
Kiko teaches the proximity-only switching function. Jefferies teaches the conventional J1772 handle-button switch that is mechanically linked to the latch and electrically included in the proximity circuit.
The combination does not teach:
wherein the latch/proximity switch is configured such that actuation of the latch/proximity switch simultaneously lifts the latch and changes a state of a proximity pin of the J1772 connector.
Jefferies teaches that depression of handle button 55 causes latch 51 to move upward and that the same handle button is part of the proximity circuit and changes the proximity-circuit state when the latch is actuated. See Jefferies ¶¶ [0005]–[0006]; FIGS. 2–3.
It would have been obvious to retain Jefferies’s conventional latch/proximity switch while additionally providing Kiko’s independently actuatable proximity-only switch because the two controls serve complementary purposes:
The proximity-only switch safely terminates charging while the adapter is locked and latch movement is blocked; and the conventional latch/proximity switch preserves ordinary J1772 operation when the adapter is absent or after the adapter lock is disengaged.
Providing both switches would allow the same J1772 connector to operate normally in its native J1772 mode and to terminate charging safely when used with the locked non-J1772 adapter.
The two switches would perform their known functions independently, and their combined operation would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights