DETAILED ACTION
1. This is the first action on the merits relating to U.S. Application Serial No. 18/532,016 filed on December 7, 2023. Currently claims 1-20 remain in the examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Applicant’s claiming benefit of US provisional application is acknowledged.
Drawings
4. Drawings originally filed on December 7, 2023 are approved. Replacement drawing filed on February 14, 2024 is also approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 10 and 12 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.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what (or where) Applicant meant by “beyond a main upper surface of the hood.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear what Applicant meant by “left-right direction (line4). Perhaps, it should be amended using driver’s perspective.
Regarding claim 12, lines 7-8, it is unclear “the first charge port is shorter than the second charge port in an up-down direction of the electric work vehicle.” If it is shorter from top of the hood, it should be clearly limited in the claim.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, 16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0191093 A1 to Yamamaru et al. (hereinafter “Yamamaru”).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamaru discloses an electric vehicle 1 (see figure 2) comprising a hood 12 (see figure 3 and paragraph 0041); a battery pack 5 (see figure 1 and paragraph 0033 and thereafter) and another battery 9 housed in the car body; a plurality of charge ports 62a and 62b (see figure 1 and paragraph 0037) connectable to the external power source to charge the battery; and the charge ports are located on the surface of the hood (see figure 1 and 2). The figure 1 show the lid 63 in closed state and figure 2 showing open state (see abstract and paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 2, port 62a is for AC used in a household charging facility, and 62b is for fast charging fast in DC (see paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 5, the lid 63 covers the charging ports 62a and 62b (see figure 2 and paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 6, the lid 63 is connected to the body of the vehicle by lid hinges 63a (see figure 5 and paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 7, the port lid further comprises of a lid lock mechanism (see abstract, paragraph 0048 and figure 5).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, as shown in figure 1, the charging port unit 6 is disposed on the upper surface of the hood (see figure 1 and paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 11, the hood includes a sloped portion that extends over the charge port 6 (see figures 1, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 16, a power distribution unit 4 (DC/DC junction box housing DC/DC converter) is disposed rear of the charge port (see figure 1 and paragraph 0035).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, it can be inferred that a normal charging port 62a is for AC, and quick charging port 62b is for DC (see paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 21, it can be also interpreted that 62b is the main port for DC charging and the charging port 62a is an auxiliary port.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0191093 A1 to Yamamaru et al. in view of US 2022/0371443 A1 to STANFIELD et al. (hereinafter “STANFIELD”).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the teachings of Yamamaru have been discussed above.
Yamamaru, however, fails to disclose or suggest that the electric vehicle is comprised of at least two or three charge ports.
STANFIELD discloses an electric vehicle comprising a plurality of charge ports (12A-E, see figures 1-3 and paragraph 0050 and thereafter).
In view of STANFIELD’s disclosure it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to employe multiple charge ports on the EV in order to convenience for the charging. The vehicle with multiple charge ports can readily reach charge cable from any direction.
Regarding claim 8, as shown in figure 2 of STANFIELD, charge port 12A is disposed in the rear portion of the hood (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, as shown in figures 2 and 3 of STANFIELD, there are multiple charge ports on the driver side and passenger side of the vehicle, and they appear to be symmetric through the center line of the vehicle going through the length of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, relying on figure 2, the charge ports 12A-12D appear to be disposed in the same height of the vehicle (see paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 18, as shown in figure 2, there are many charge ports on the driver side and the driver gets in the vehicle by opening the driver side door.
The limitations in these claims can readily adopted by the one ordinary skill in the art to improve overall functionality of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims are directed at a work vehicle comprising a hood, a battery housing, and a plurality of charge ports, and other structures and components for the work vehicle. The work vehicle as recited in these claims is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references. Even if some teachings may be found in other references, Examiner finds no grounds to combine them.
Conclusion
The pertinent prior arts made of record but not relied are listed in the attached form PTO-892. These are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is respectfully suggested to carefully review these references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ahshik Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-2393. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday thru Friday. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571)273-2393.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham, can be reached on (571)272-3689. The fax phone number for this Group is (571)273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [ahshik.kim@uspto.gov].
PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AHSHIK KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights