Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/435,396

CHARGING AND CLEANING SYSTEM FOR AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 07, 2024
Examiner
LEE, DOUGLAS
Art Unit
1714
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Audi AG
OA Round
2 (Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
59%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
286 granted / 649 resolved
-20.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
683
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
56.1%
+16.1% vs TC avg
§102
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
§112
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 649 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Response to Amendment Claims 1-12 are pending, claim 12 having been withdrawn. Applicant's response filed December 19, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102018004919A1 to Schwill et al. (see machine translation) in view of WO2019-101677A1 to Meyer et al. (see machine translation), JP014-144671A to Uchida (see machine translation) and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/003148 to Kwak et al. As to claim 1, Schwill discloses a charging system for an electric vehicle (see Schwill paragraphs [0001], [0007]) comprising: a charging unit configured to electrically charge a traction battery of the electric vehicle (see Schwill Fig. 1, ref.#, 2, 5; paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0018]); and a cleaning system configured to clean an external surface of the electric vehicle, the cleaning system comprising a cleaning unit, an arm coupled to the cleaning unit and movable relative to the cleaning unit, and a cleaning nozzle coupled to a free end of the arm (see Schwill Fig. 2, ref.# ;paragraphs [0008], [0010]-[0011], [0019]-[0020], [0025]). While Schwill does not explicitly disclose that the charging system is configured such that the charging system can electrically charge the traction battery of the electric vehicle and the cleaning system can clean the external surface of the electric vehicle simultaneously, the prior art discloses that it is known art to have a vehicle station that can simultaneously clean and charge the vehicle (see Meyer paragraph [0020]; see also Uchida paragraphs [0041]-[0043], [0053]-[0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Schwill to have the charging system configured such that the charging system can electrically charge the traction battery of the electric vehicle and the cleaning system can clean the external surface of the electric vehicle simultaneously as disclosed by Meyer and Uchida in order to optimize the cleaning/charging times for the used (see Meyer paragraph [0020] and Uchida paragraphs [0043], [0057]). Both Meyer and Uchida disclose that the charging can be performed wirelessly (see Meyer paragraph [0021] and Uchida, e.g., paragraphs [0041]-[0043] and [0053]-[0057]). Furthermore, separation of parts and duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) and 2144.04(VI)(B)). Kwak discloses that it is known in the art to have a robot arm with only a charging plug (see Kwak paragraph [0009]). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a robot arm with a charging plug in addition to the arm disclosed by Schwill and the results would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143(I)(A) where combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious). As to claims 2 and 3, Schwill discloses that the cleaning unit can comprise at least one actuator configured to move the arm and comprises a control device functionally coupled to at least one actuator and configured to control the at least one actuator (see Schwill paragraphs [0009]-[0011], [0019]-[002], [0023], [0029]). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102018004919A1 to Schwill et al. in view of WO2019-101677A1 to Meyer et al. (see machine translation), JP014-144671A to Uchida (see machine translation) and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/003148 to Kwak et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0345811 to Michels et al. Schwill, Meyer, Uchida and Kwak are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 3. As to claim 4, the combination of Schwill, Meyer, Uchida and Kwak does not explicitly disclose that the cleaning unit comprises a communication device functionally coupled to the control device, the communication device configured to wirelessly communicate with the electric vehicle arranged in the charging system. Michels discloses a similar electric vehicle servicing system comprising a wireless communication system with the electric vehicle (see Michels paragraphs [0027]-[0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a wireless communication system as disclosed by Michels in order to provide the cleaning and servicing information from the vehicle to the cleaning system in order to autonomously clean the vehicle as disclosed by Michels (see Michels paragraphs [0027]-[0030]). Claim(s) 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102018004919A1 to Schwill et al. in view of WO2019-101677A1 to Meyer et al. (see machine translation), JP014-144671A to Uchida (see machine translation) and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/003148 to Kwak et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN108621837A to Hao (see machine translation). Schwill, Meyer, Uchida and Kwak are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claims 5-11, while Schwill discloses a hose or several hoses to deliver the cleaning fluid (see Schwill paragraph [0025]), the combination of Schwill, Meyer, Uchida and Kwak does not explicitly disclose the water supply system. Hao discloses a similar charging system and cleaning system for an electric vehicle that comprises a rainwater and process water collection, storage and circulation system (see, e.g., Hao paragraphs [0009]-[0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Schwill/Meyer/Uchida/Kwak and Hao in order to include the rainwater and process water collection, storage and circulation system as disclosed by Hao in order to effectively achieve energy saving and electricity saving as well as water saving and recycling of water resources (see Hao paragraph [0016]). As to claim 5, the combination of Schwill, Meyer, Uchida, Kwak and Hao discloses a supply container fluidly coupled to the cleaning nozzle and configured to provide cleaning water (see Hao Fig. 1, ref.#10; paragraph [0024]) To the extent that it could be argued that the supply container is not separate from the cleaning unit, separation of parts is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)). As to claim 6, the combination of Schwill, Meyer, Uchida and Kwak discloses that the supply container can include a removal device for manually removing the cleaning water from the supply container (see Hao Fig. 1, ref.#11, 12, 13 and 9 and paragraph [0024]; see also Schwill paragraph [0025] disclosing that several water supply hoses may be provided). As to claim 7, the combination of Schwill, Meyer, Uchida and Kwak discloses that the cleaning system can comprises a water treatment unit, an output side of the water treatment unit being fluidly coupled to an inlet of the supply container (see Hao Figs. 1 and 2, ref.#17-19; paragraph [0024]). As to claims 8-11, the combination of Schwill, Meyer, Uchida and Kwak discloses that the cleaning system can comprise a collecting container configured to collect at least one of rainwater and process water, an output side of the collecting container being fluidly connected to the inlet of the water treatment unit (see Hao Fig.1, ref.#2 and 10 to collect rainwater and/or process water) wherein the cleaning system can be considered as comprising a rainwater collection device arranged on a roof of the charging system, the output side of the rainwater collection device being fluidly connected to the inlet of the collecting chamber or the rainwater collection device is configured as a roof of the charging system, an output side of the rainwater collection device being fluidly connected to the inlet of the collecting chamber (see Hao Fig. 1, ref.#5-7 disclosing a roof collecting device that can be considered as either arranged on the roof or configured as the roof of the charging system) and also a process water collection device arranged in a subsurface of the charging system, an output side of the process water collection device being fluidly connected to the inlet of the collecting container (see Hao Fig. 1, ref.#1-3). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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 since Meyer, Uchida and Kwak are now relied upon for the newly added claim limitations as discussed 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 DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm. 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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. /DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 07, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 19, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599941
CLEAN HEAD, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USE IN CLEANING A FLUID CONDUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603263
APPARATUSES AND TECHNIQUES FOR CLEANING A MULTI-STATION SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12569109
DISHWASHER FOR TREATING WASHWARE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565004
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12557578
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD AND SUBLIMATION DRYING PROCESSING AGENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
44%
Grant Probability
59%
With Interview (+14.8%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 649 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month