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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The device according to claim 1, wherein a maximum permissible switching current of the switching elements is at least as large as the minimum current. The examiner does not understand the scope of the limitation the allowed maximum current to activate the switch would be as large as the minimum current of what? The examiner would interpret the claim as the allowed maximum current needed to activate the switch(es) to avoid an overvoltage or overcurrent. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim appears to be confusing given the fact that the input/output to the switching matrix as shown in applicant’s figures appears to be DC so how can AC current be coupled to the switching matrix. Is the applicant implying a higher current than that of the DC current can actuate the switches? Can an AC and DC source be coupled to the same switching matrix wherein some of the switches can be AC source reliable? The only support for the applicant’s claimed limitation can be found in (para 0006, 0032, claim 15 of applicant’s PGPUB 2024/0186804) without a detailed description. Clarification is needed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssefzadeh (US 2022/0363155) in view of Gustafon (US 2024/0333006) or DE 112019003891 (Nishio et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Youssefzadeh teaches in (see fig. 9) a charging device or system configured to charge at least one electric vehicle, comprising: a plurality of electrical power units (DER, 178, para 0013, DC modules, 174s) configured to provide electrical power for charging the electric vehicle; at least one charging port that, via a charging cable, is configured to connect the charging device to the electric vehicle (see charger/dispenser, 122a,….122n); a coupling arrangement (switching matrix, 120, para 0056) with switching elements which can be activated to selectively connect the charging port to at least one power unit of the plurality of power units in such a way that electrical power can be transmitted from the at least one power unit (178, 174a…174m) to the at least one charging port for charging of the electric vehicle (see switching matrix, 120); and a controller (CMS, 124), configured to activate the switching elements, the controller (124, para 0054) configured to control circuit breakers (176a,…176m). Circuit breakers (176s), controlled by a controller (124), are known in the art as preventing power from being transmitted or coupled in response to a fault in (see para 0056-0057) or opening in response to a fault detection to prevent power from being transmitted or coupled.
Youssefzadeh fails to teach explicitly the applicant’s limitation “prevent activation for switching over individual switching elements while at least a predefined minimum current is flowing through the individual switching elements” is read as an undercurrent/overcurrent condition.
Gustafon teaches a charging device wherein multiple fault conditions can be monitored and detected in (see para 0042) including overcurrent, undercurrent, overvoltage or undervoltage) using a current sensor when applied in the circuit breaker of Seymour can prevent faults.
DE ‘891 teaches a charging station system wherein a current monitoring system (80 of figs. with elements @81, 82, 83) “current sensor” can detect undercurrent, overvoltage and the connection to the charging station can be disconnected, severed or preventing in (see disclosure
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of using any known condition such as undercurrent “a predetermined minimum current level” to prevent damage to charging circuits or prevent damage to loads.
Regarding claim 2, The combination as set forth in claim 1 teaches using a voltage or current sensor (173, 175 of fig. 9 of Youssefzadeh or 80 of DE ‘891) to determine faults such as undercurrent or overcurrent in (see explanation as set forth in claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, The combination teaches a controller (124 of fig. 9 of Seymour) for controlling wherein the coupling arrangement is configured for connecting/disconnecting a selectable power unit from all charging ports in (see fig. 9, fig. 3 of Youssefzadeh).
Regarding claim 7, The combination teaches wherein the controller (see fig. 9 of Seymour) is arranged to select the power unit to be disconnected at least on the basis of a command received from the controller and to control the coupling arrangement to connect/disconnect the selected power unit (see figs. 3, 9 and CMS @fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Youssefzadeh teaches a method of operating a charging device for charging at least one electric vehicle, the method comprising: providing electrical power for charging the electric vehicle from a plurality of electrical power units(DER, 178, para 0013, DC modules, 174s); connecting the charging device to the electric vehicle via at least one charging port(see charger/dispenser, 122a,….122n); controlling switching elements of a coupling arrangement of the charging device to selectively connect the charging port to at least one power unit such that electrical power is transmitted from the at least one power unit to the charging port for charging the electric vehicle (124) (178, 174a…174m) (see switching matrix, 120) of (fig. 9)..
Circuit breakers (176s), controlled by a controller, are known in the art as preventing power from being transmitted or coupled in response to a fault in (see para 0056-0057, fig. 9) or opening in response to a fault detection to prevent power from being transmitted or coupled.
Youssefzadeh fails to teach explicitly the applicant’s limitation “prevent activation for switching over individual switching elements while at least a predefined minimum current is flowing through the individual switching elements” is read as an undercurrent/overcurrent condition.
Gustafon teaches a charging device wherein multiple fault conditions can be monitored and detected in (see para 0042) including overcurrent, undercurrent, overvoltage or undervoltage) using a current sensor.
DE ‘891 teaches a charging station system wherein a current monitoring system (80 of figs. with elements @81, 82, 83) “current sensor” can detect undercurrent, overvoltage and the connection to the charging station can be disconnected, severed or preventing in (see disclosure
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of using any known condition such as undercurrent/overcurrent “a predetermined minimum current level” to prevent damage to charging circuits or prevent damage to loads.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssefzadeh (US 2022/0363155) in view of Gustafon (US 2024/0333006) or DE 112019003891 and further in view of Koolen et al. (US 2015/0123613).
Regarding claim 3, The combination fails to teach wherein the charging device has a message transmission device which is configured to forward messages from the charging port to those power units which are connected to the charging port for transmitting the electrical power.
Koolen et al. teaches in (see figs.) a charging system wherein the charging device has a message transmission device (2c, 3c, 8a, 9a, 10a, 11a, see para 0028) which is configured to forward messages from the charging ports to the power units (8, 9, 10) which are electrically connected to the charging port for transmitting power (see para 0013, 0014, 0024, 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Koolen into that of the combination thus making it possible to satisfy the needs of an operator of a vehicle based on a given request which can include power requirement as desired the EV
Regarding claim 5, see the explanation as set forth regarding claim 4.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssefzadeh (US 2022/0363155) in view of Gustafon (US 2024/0333006) or DE 112019003891 and further in view of Koolen et al. (US 2015/0123613) and further in view of Murasato el. (US 2022/0203852).
Regarding claim 4, The combination fails to teach wherein the message comprises a status message indicating a required termination of the power transmission to the vehicle, and the power units are configured to terminate the power transmission upon receipt of such a status message.
Murasato et al. teaches a charging system in (see para 0078) wherein a request from an EV can be met including terminating a charging process when received by a charging station. The teaching can be duplicated for multiple converters or power units
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Murasato into that of the combination thus making it possible to decide the time duration of a charging session based on a user’s schedule and to bill the user accordingly.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssefzadeh (US 2022/0363155) in view of Gustafon (US 2024/0333006) or DE 112019003891 and further in Youssefzadeh (US 11,285,831).
Regarding claim 8, The combination fails to teach explicitly the limitation wherein a maximum permissible switching current of the switching elements is at least as large as the minimum current even though it can be argued that the switch would operate based on the current needed to open or close the switch.
Youssefzadeh teaches a charging system wherein a switch matrix can operate with the maximum current in (see claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Youssefzadeh into that of the combination thus making it possible to avoid destroying the switch matrix with overvoltage or overcurrent by activating the switches with the required current.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssefzadeh (US 2022/0363155) in view of Gustafon (US 2024/0333006) or DE 112019003891 and further in view of Bouman (US 2026/0138470).
Regarding claim 9, The combination teaches in (see fig. 3) when modified with fig. 9, a similar structure, to the claimed subject matter but fails to teach explicitly wherein the coupling arrangement has a coupling matrix, wherein rows of the coupling matrix are each assigned to a power unit and columns of the coupling matrix are each assigned to a charging port.
Bouman teaches a charging system in (see fig. 8) wherein the coupling arrangement has a coupling matrix, wherein rows of the coupling matrix are each assigned to a power unit and columns of the coupling matrix are each assigned to a charging port.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bouman into that of the combination thus making it possible to activate or deactivate power switches based on availability of power source or to route around malfunctions in a power system.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssefzadeh (US 2022/0363155) in view of Gustafon (US 2024/0333006) or DE 112019003891 and further in view of Bouman (US 2026/0138470).
Regarding claims 10-12, The combination teaches a frame in (see figs. 4, 6, para 0044-0045 of Seymour) but fails to teach explicitly wherein the coupling arrangement to accommodate a plurality of circuit carriers of the coupling arrangement, wherein switching elements of a row of the coupling matrix are arranged on one of these circuit carriers in each case as claimed in claim 9.
wherein the coupling arrangement which are assigned to different columns of the coupling matrix, wherein the circuit carriers each comprise a part of the circuit elements of this row of the coupling matrix as claimed in claim 11.
wherein configured to accommodate a plurality of circuit carriers on which one or more switching elements of the same row of the coupling matrix are arranged as claimed in claim 12.
Bouman et al. teaches a charging system for EVS wherein in (see fig. 4A,-6, fig. 9, para 0043-0045) switching elements in row and columns read as circuit carriers with switches can be used in controlling how power is distributed through a charging network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bouman into that of the combination thus making it possible to control output power to loads (EV) via a switching matrix controlled by a controller based on power availability, requirement of loads and to avoid coupling malfunctioning power sources to loads.
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssefzadeh (US 2022/0363155) in view of Gustafon (US 2024/0333006) or DE 112019003891 and further in view of Bouman (US 2026/0138470) and further in view of Meisner et al. (US 4,948,949).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, The combination fails to teach wherein at least one of the circuit carriers is detachably connectable to the rack frame via a plug connector.
Meisner teaches a switching arrangement wherein printed circuit boards can accommodate switches and control units “carrier circuits” which can use plug connectors (in see claims 1-5) within a frame unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Meisner into that of the combination thus making it possible to disassemble switching modules for maintenance or repairs.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssefzadeh (US 2022/0363155) in view of Gustafon (US 2024/0333006) or DE 112019003891 (Nishio et al.) and Bouman et al. (US 2026/0138470).
Regarding claim 15, Youssefzadeh teaches in (see fig. 9) a charging device configured to charge an electric vehicle comprising: a plurality of electrical power units (DC modules of fig. 9, 174a….174m) configured to provide direct current electrical power for charging the electric vehicle; at least one charging port that, via a charging cable, is configured to connect the charging device to the electric vehicle (EV, 123a,…123n); a coupling arrangement including (switching matrix, 120) which can be activated to selectively connect the charging port to at least one power unit of the plurality of power units (DC modules, 174s) so that electrical power can be transmitted from the at least one power unit to the at least one charging port to charge the electric vehicle; and a controller (124) configured to activate ones of the switching elements,.
Circuit breakers (176s) controller by controller (124 of fig. 9 of Seymour) are known in the art as preventing power from being transmitted or coupled in response to a fault in (see para 0056-0057) or opening in response to a fault detection to prevent power from being transmitted or coupled.
Youssefzadeh fails to teach explicitly the applicant’s limitation “prevent activation for switching over individual switching elements while at least a predefined minimum current is flowing through the individual switching elements” is read as an undercurrent/overcurrent condition.
Gustafon teaches a charging device wherein multiple fault conditions can be monitored and detected in (see para 0042) including overcurrent, undercurrent, overvoltage or undervoltage) using a current sensor.
DE ‘891 teaches a charging station system wherein a current monitoring system (80 of figs. with elements @81, 82, 83) “current sensor” can detect undercurrent, overvoltage and the connection to the charging station can be disconnected, severed or preventing in (see disclosure
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of using any known condition such as undercurrent/overcurrent “a predetermined minimum current level” to prevent damage to charging circuits or prevent damage to loads by means of circuit breakers.
The combination fails to teach a switching matrix “coupling unit” which can operate on both DC and possibly AC (alternating current) with AC switching elements as read by the examiner to be AC or DC inputs with AC or DC outputs.
Bouman teaches a switching matrix wherein power types such as AC or DC or the AC or DC outputs in (see para 0039, see fig. 1d) can be allowed through the switching matrix
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bouman into the combination thus making it possible to accommodate different types of power sources, multiple inputs, and provide the capable of applying different types of power sources (outputs) to connected loads.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to rexford n barnie whose telephone number is (571)272-7492. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5PM.
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.
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.
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights