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
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites: “an automatic-eject plug” and “an electric vehicle;” twice. Emend the 2nd instances to “the automatic-eject plug” and “the electric vehicle;”.
Claim 12 recites “the automatic ejection assembly”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. Emend to “an automatic ejection assembly”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chagny (USPGPN 20200112127)
Independent Claim 1, Chagny discloses a method (Fig. [8],
¶’s [43-58, 60]) for controlling an automatic-ejection plug (Figs. [1-7]) connected to an electric vehicle (1), comprising:
detecting a disconnect trigger by an automatic ejection control system (70, ¶’s [43, 44, 49, 50, 52, 53]), the disconnect trigger indicating that an automatic-eject plug (10) should be ejected from an electric vehicle;
in response to detecting the disconnect trigger, controlling an ejection assembly (Figs. [6, 7], 60 esp. 65) connected to the automatic-eject plug to cause the automatic-eject plug to eject from the electric vehicle (¶’s [41, 42, 54-58]).
Independent Claim 12, Chagny discloses an automatic ejection control system (70 of Figs. [1-7], control Fig. [8], ¶’s [43-58, 60]) for an electric vehicle plug (10), the automatic ejection control system configured to:
detect a disconnect trigger (70, ¶’s [43, 44, 49, 50, 52, 53]), the disconnect trigger indicating that the electric vehicle plug should be ejected from an electric vehicle (1);
in response to detecting the disconnect trigger, cause the electric vehicle plug to eject from the electric vehicle (¶’s [41, 42, 54-58]),
wherein the automatic ejection assembly (Figs. [6, 7], 60 esp. 65) is removably attached to the electric vehicle plug (¶[36] describes it as an active part, where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that anything is removable from another, esp. if the parts are not integral; noted the applicant has not claimed the parts are both easily detachable and re-attachable).
Independent Claim 16, Chagny discloses an automatic ejection assembly (Figs. [6, 7], 60 esp. 65), comprising:
a mounting assembly (66, 61) for mounting the automatic ejection assembly to an electric vehicle plug (10); and
a first automatic ejection mechanism (65, 63, 62) configured to cause the electric vehicle plug to eject from an electric vehicle (¶’s [41, 42, 54-58], Fig. 8).
Dependent Claim 2, Chagny discloses before detecting the disconnect trigger:
detecting that the automatic-eject plug is connected to the electric vehicle; and controlling charging to the electric vehicle through the automatic-eject plug (Fig. 8, ¶’s [43-58, 60]).
Dependent Claim 3, 13, and 17, Chagny discloses the automatic-eject plug has a connection that conforms to one of the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE), Combined Charging Standard/Type 1 (CCS1), Combined Charging Standard/Type 2 (CCS2), North American Charging Standard (NACS), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62196 Type 1, IEC Type 2, IEC Type 3, and TS-0023666 standard connections (plug defined as an IEC 62196 standard plug, which is known to those of ordinary skill in the art to mean an EVSE plug including: type 1, type 2, type 3).
Dependent Claims 6, 14, and 19, Chagny discloses controlling the ejection assembly to cause the automatic-eject plug to cause the automatic-eject plug to eject from the electric vehicle includes activating a motor (¶[60] describes the actuator is motorized, i.e. activating a motor).
Dependent Claim 8 and 15, Chagny discloses detecting a disconnect trigger includes detecting a signal indicating that charging has completed (¶’s [43, 49])
Dependent Claim 10 and 15, Chagny discloses detecting a disconnect trigger includes detecting a remote-control disconnect signal (¶’s [11, 44]).
Dependent Claim 11, Chagny discloses retracting the automatic-eject plug from the immediate proximity of the electric vehicle (the ejection would move it from the vicinity of the vehicle, esp. after when the vehicle drives away, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art)
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 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.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagny (USPGPN 20200112127) in view of Staley et al (USPGPN 20140021915) and Savill (USPN 4669791), as evidenced by Martinez (USPN 4807499) and Torre et al (USPGPN 20050065409)
Dependent Claim 18, Chagny teaches the first automatic-ejection mechanism.
Chagny is silent to the ejection mechanism includes a spring-loaded collar.
Savill teaches the ejection mechanism includes a pneumatic actuator (¶’s [29, 32] corresponding to the structure of Fig. 7, vehicle connection shown in Figs. [1, 2]) with a similar structure to Chagny. Staley teaches that a pneumatic actuator is known to include a spring-loaded collar (Col 5 L38-44, where at least the abstract teaches that this system is used for analogous applications [vehicle, power/energy provision connector]).
Official notice taken that pneumatic actuators are simpler, quicker, and more compact than some other types of actuators, including electric actuators. Martinez and Torre provides evidence that the spring-loaded collar provides improved stability for the actuator by providing a snug fit (abstract) and improved safety (¶[14], Torre).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chagny with Staley and Savill to provide improved compactness, safety, simplicity, stability, and quickness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagny (USPGPN 20200112127) in view of Staley et al (USPGPN 20140021915)
Dependent Claim 7, Chagny is silent to controlling the ejection assembly to cause the plug to eject from the electric vehicle includes activating a solenoid.
Staley teaches controlling the ejection assembly to cause the plug to eject from the electric vehicle includes activating a solenoid (¶’s [33, 35, 39, 41], Fig. 10). While Chagny teaches motorized actuation, Staley teaches a known solenoid, where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the motorized actuation of Chagny with the solenoid of Staley for predictable results (KSR B).
Claim 4 and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagny (USPGPN 20200112127) in view of Newman et al (USPGPN 20180201145)
Dependent Claims 4 and 7, Chagny is silent to controlling the ejection assembly to cause the plug to eject from the electric vehicle includes activating a solenoid (with respect to [wrt] Claim 7) and an air actuated cylinder (wrt Claim 4)
Newman teaches controlling the ejection assembly to cause the plug to eject from the electric vehicle includes activating a solenoid and an air actuated cylinder (¶’s [232, 233, 235] in view of the abstract). While Chagny teaches motorized actuation, Newman teaches a known solenoid and air actuated cylinder, where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the motorized actuation of Chagny with the solenoid of Newman for predictable results (KSR B).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagny (USPGPN 20200112127) in view of Nugent et al (USPGPN 20080146058)
Dependent Claim 5, Chagny is silent to controlling the ejection assembly to cause the plug to eject from the electric vehicle includes activating a linear actuator.
Nugent teaches controlling the ejection assembly to cause the plug to eject from the electric vehicle includes activating a linear actuator (¶[21] in light of Claim 3 of Nugent, Figs. [4-7]). While Chagny teaches motorized actuation, Nugent teaches a known linear actuator, where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the motorized actuation of Chagny with the solenoid of Nugent for predictable results (KSR B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagny (USPGPN 20200112127) in view of Linsmeier et al (USPGPN 20220355690; hereinafter Lins)
Dependent Claim 9, Chagny is silent to detecting a disconnect trigger includes detecting a signal indicating that a brake pedal has been pressed on the electric vehicle
Lins teaches detecting a disconnect trigger includes detecting a signal indicating that a brake pedal has been pressed on the electric vehicle (¶’s [66, 67, esp. 66] describes that transitions between modes [i.e. gears, starting, etc.] can be performed by either brake of clutch, where Lins analogous to Chagny and the present application describes a trigger for ejecting a charging plug from the vehicle in ¶’s [49, 95-97] that the start sequence acts as a trigger to disconnect the plug, where Lins earlier implies the brake pedal is required to start the vehicle). Furthermore, official notice taken where starting many vehicles, e.g. a Toyota hybrid vehicle, is known to occur by pressing the brake pedal [also involving switching gears] to permit the motor and/or engine to be started while simultaneously pressing the ignition/starter-motor. Official notice taken that by requiring the brake to be pressed to change the mode of the vehicle (off to start, parked to drive, drive to park, park to reverse, and park to off), it improves the safety of the system, esp. when starting by preventing the vehicle from moving forward by mistake.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chagny with Lins to provide improved safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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 T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights