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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings (Figs. 1 & 2) should be provided with descriptive text labels. 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 Objections
Claim1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 should recite “coupled to a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, & 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khamashta et al. (USPGPN 2022/0332201).
Regarding Claim 9, Khamashta (Fig.2) teaches a method for supplying electric power from a vehicle (¶0035: V2G), comprising:
sensing a voltage that is indicative of an electric coupler having serial communications capability via circuitry of the vehicle (156; ¶0034: charging communication circuits include pilot level control and proximity detection, which includes sensing voltage of an electric coupler), where the voltage is sensed at an electric conductor (162); and
requesting identification data for the electric coupler via circuitry of the vehicle (¶0046: exchange proper parameters).
Regarding Claim 10, Khamashta further teaches where requesting identification is performed via a serial communications link (¶0036: SAE J1772; ¶0046: exchanging data indicates serial communication between the controller 120 and EV 150).
Regarding Claim 16, Khamashta (Fig.2) teaches an electric coupling system for an electric vehicle, comprising:
an electrical plug (170) included with the electric vehicle (150);
a first circuit (156) included in the electric vehicle, the first circuit in electrical communication with the electrical plug and configured to sense a voltage associated with a pin of the electrical plug and communicate with an external electric coupler via adjusting the voltage (¶0046: exchanging proper parameters, indicating bi-directional communication; bi-directional digital communication includes sensing voltages and adjusting voltages).
Regarding Claim 17, Khamashta further teaches a power source electrically coupled to the pin of the electrical plug (164 voltage supply).
Regarding Claim 18, Khamashta further teaches a second circuit (120, 160, 164, 235, 265) included in an electric coupler (215) that includes a controller (120) that is configured to be powered via the power source (voltage supply 164).
Regarding Claim 19, Khamashta further teaches executable instructions stored in non-transitory memory that cause the controller to communicate with the electric vehicle (¶0047: non-transitory machine-readable storage media for execution on the processor).
Regarding Claim 20, Khamashta further teaches where communicating with the electric vehicle includes transmitting operating conditions of the electric coupler (¶0047: exchange proper parameters; ¶0070: features supported by the charging cable such as maximum supported current).
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(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khamashta, in view of NPL UDEL “Differential CAN Communication Over Proximity and Control Pilot” (published 2020; hereinafter referred to as UDEL), with supporting evidence provided by Choi et al. (USPGPN 2021/0008994) and NPL TI “TCAN1044V Datasheet” (published 2019; hereinafter referred to as TI).
Regarding Claim 1, Khamashta (Fig.2) teaches an electric coupler for an electric vehicle, comprising:
an electric conductor (162) electrically coupled to a voltage divider circuit (proximity sensor circuit 265 through 148; Choi provides evidence that a proximity sensor circuit comprises a voltage divider circuit Fig.6, 120S, 120R, & unlabeled resistor connected to 120R; ¶0074: proximity detection pin 121) and circuitry configured to identify one or more attributes of the electric coupler (120/142/146).
Khamashta fails to explicitly teach a transistor.
However, UDEL teaches an electrical connection between a CAN transceiver (Pg.2, EVSE CAN_H & CAN_L) where TI provides evidence that a CAN transceiver includes a transistor (TI-Pg.14, MOSFET connected to CANL).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Khamashta with UDEL to electrically couple the voltage divider circuitry and the circuitry with a transistor. Doing so allows for a differential signaling system while retaining the required original functionality of proximity detection, as taught by UDEL (Pg.2, Para.3).
Regarding Claim 2, Khamashta, as modified, further teaches where the electric conductor is further coupled a proximity pilot pin of a SAE J1772 connector (UDEL-Pg.5, Para.1: Prox in SAE J1772).
Regarding Claim 3, Khamashta, as modified, further teaches where the voltage divider circuit is comprised of a first resistor and a second resistor (evidenced by Choi- Fig.6, 120R and resistor connected above it).
Regarding Claim 4, Khamashta, as modified, further teaches where the electric conductor is electrically coupled directly to a drain of the transistor (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, UDEL-CANL conductor connected to MOSFET drain).
Regarding Claim 5, Khamashta, as modified, further teaches where the circuitry configured to identify one or more attributes of the electric coupler is a microcontroller (Fig.2, 120; ¶0046: communication circuits 146 exchange parameters; UDEL – EVSE CAN transceiver).
Regarding Claim 6, Khamashta, as modified, teaches the claimed invention except that the microcontroller comprises the transistor and controls the gate of the transistor instead of being electrically coupled directly to a gate of the transistor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to separate the transistor from the microcontroller and connect the microcontroller directly to the gate of the transistor, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 1. Doing so allows for a smaller/simpler microcontroller to be used reducing the cost of the component.
Regarding Claim 7, Khamashta, as modified, further teaches where electrical ground is electrically coupled directly to a source of the transistor (evidenced by TI- Pg.14, MOSFET source connection directly to ground).
Regarding Claim 8, Khamashta, as modified, further teaches a temperature sensor in electrical communication with the microcontroller (¶0051: controller 120 may receive temperature data from sensors in the cable).
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khamashta, in view of UDEL, with supporting evidence provided by.
Regarding Claim 11, Khamashta further teaches where the serial communications link is integral with a vehicle electrical charging/discharging circuit (¶0046: exchanging proper parameters for charging indicating communications link is integral with charging/discharging circuit).
Khamashta fails to explicitly teach where the serial communications link is integral with a proximity detection circuit of the electric coupler.
However, UDEL teaches an electrical connection between a CAN transceiver (Pg.2, EVSE CAN_H & CAN_L).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Khamashta with UDEL to electrically couple the voltage divider circuitry and the circuitry with a transistor. Doing so allows for a differential signaling system while retaining the required original functionality of proximity detection, as taught by UDEL (Pg.2, Para.3).
Regarding Claim 12, Khamashta, as modified, further teaches responding to the requesting identification data via circuitry of the electric coupler (¶0046: exchanging data).
Regarding Claim 13, Khamashta, as modified, further teaches where responding to the requesting identification data includes communicating maximum voltage and current carrying capacity of the electric coupler (¶0052: over-voltage, indicating a maximum voltage; ¶0058: maximum current supported).
Regarding Claim 14, Khamashta, as modified, further teaches where the circuitry of the electric coupler includes a controller (Fig.2, 120).
Regarding Claim 15, Khamashta, as modified, teaches the claimed invention except that the transmitting data including temperature of the electric coupler is to the EVSE (¶0051: temperature data) and not to the vehicle via the circuitry of the electric coupler. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the temperature data transmitted to the vehicle via the circuitry, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Doing so allows the vehicle controller to manage the power exchange in a V2G scheme reducing the processor load on the EVSE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights