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 5 & 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the end portion” instead of “an end portion”.
Claim 9 recites “the charging head not engaging the vehicle to vertically move a charging head of the charging assembly towards a vehicle;” in lines 6-7. This should instead read as “a charging head not engaging a vehicle to vertically move the charging head of the charging assembly towards the vehicle;”.
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.
Claims 5, 6, & 20 are 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. Claims 5, 6, & 20 each recite limitations relating to the stop on the charging head (the stop engages an end portion & the stop includes a hook feature), however the specification does not support the limitations as claimed. Referring to the Specification paragraphs ¶0107-0109, the charging head may utilize one or more stops including a stop which engages a protrusion, a stop which hooks under the charging contacts, or a stop which engages an end portion/side of the charging contacts. Claims 5, 6, & 20 appear to claim a limitation in which a single stop both engages with a protrusion and engages an end portion of the charging contacts or hooks under the charging contacts. The Specification does not support the claimed limitation of a single stop interacting in three different manners.
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.
Claims 1-8 & 15-20 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 8, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially” is used in relation to a vertical direction and horizontal direction in claims 1 & 15, and in relation to a parallel or perpendicular orientation in claim 8. It is unclear how much of a vertical direction the charging head is moved by the actuator to read on the claimed limitation, how much of a horizontal direction the charging head moves when the actuator is disengaged to read on the claimed limitation, how parallel the conductive rails need to be to read on the claimed limitation, or how perpendicular the conductive rails need to be in relation to the conductor rails to read on the claimed limitation. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets these to read as “vertical direction”, “horizontal direction”, “parallel”, and “perpendicular”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "connection member" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this recitation is intended to introduce a new structural limitation or refer back to the “connection portion” previously recited in the claim. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets this to read as “connection portion”.
Claims 2-8 & 16-20 depend from claims 1 & 15, respectively, and therefore inherit their deficiencies.
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 - 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pachler (USPGPN 2020/0055417).
Regarding Claim 9, Pachler (Figs. 1 & 2) teaches a method, comprising:
driving an upper arm of a vehicle charging assembly with an actuator (¶0054: motor drives linear drive 28 to move an upper arm);
moving a lower arm and a linkage of the vehicle charging assembly using one or more of the actuator or a weight of the charging assembly (Fig.2 shows lower arm 19 and linkage 17 moved by the motor 43 extending the linear drive 28);
engaging the actuator with the upper arm using a connection portion (34 & 39) of the vehicle charging assembly responsive to a charging head not engaging a vehicle to vertically move the charging head of the charging assembly toward the vehicle (¶0001: forming a connection between a charging station and a vehicle; ¶0054: charging contact not shown);
disengaging the actuator from the upper arm using the connection portion responsive to the charging head engaging the vehicle for horizontal movement of the charging head of the charging assembly (when the motor is stopped the weight of the charging assembly helps maintain the charging contact at the desired height, allowing for horizontal movement of the charging contacts; ¶0052: parallel movement of the mount 22 relative to horizontal plane 23).
Regarding Claim 10, Pachler further teaches wherein the horizontal movement of the charging head engages the charging contact (¶0001: connection between a charging station and a vehicle, intended when the charging contact is extended).
Regarding Claim 11, Pachler further teaches wiping the charging contact with the horizontal movement of the charging head (horizontal movement of the charging head, as disclosed in the rejection above, would wipe the contacts).
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) 1-7, 12, 15, & 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachler.
Regarding Claims 1 & 15, Pachler (Figs. 1 & 2) teaches a charging assembly, comprising:
a charging head (¶0053: charging contact not shown) configured to selectively engage a charging contact of a vehicle (¶0001: connection between a charging station and a vehicle);
an actuator (43) configured to drive an upper arm (16);
a linkage (28) configured to be extendable and retractable in length (retracted in Fig.1 and extended in Fig.2), the linkage configured to be driven by one or more of the actuator (¶0054: linear drive 28 is driven by motor 43) or a weight of the charging assembly; and
a connection portion (34 & 39) configured to couple the actuator and the upper arm, the connection portion configured to engage the actuator and the upper arm responsive to the charging head not engaging the vehicle, the connection portion configured to allow a torque from the actuator to move the charging head in a vertical direction (Figs.1-2, motor 43 extends the linear drive 28 to lower the charging contact),
the connection portion configured to disengage the actuator from the upper arm responsive to the charging head engaging the vehicle (¶0055: motor is controlled indicated starting and stopping of the motor), the connection portion configured to allow a force from the weight of the charging assembly to move the charging head in a horizontal direction (when the motor is stopped the weight of the charging assembly helps maintain the charging contact at the desired height, allowing for horizontal movement of the charging contacts; ¶0052: parallel movement of the mount 22 relative to horizontal plane 23).
Pachler discloses the claimed invention except for the connection portion is not described as “selectively” coupling the actuator and upper arm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provided different coupling points on the connection portion, as shown by Pachler with an additional hole above point 42 in Fig.2, for providing an adjustable connection, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Providing this different coupling point allows a user to adjust the torque applied to the connection portion and upper arm rotation by allowing a user to select a coupling point closer to or further from the pivot point 25 (Fig.2).
Regarding Claims 2 & 17, Pachler further teaches wherein movement of the charging head in the horizontal direction results in the charging head engaging the charging contact (¶0001: connection between a charging station and a vehicle, intended when the charging contact is extended, horizontal movement of the charging head would wipe the contacts).
Regarding Claims 3 & 18, Pachler teaches the claimed invention except for it does not specify a stop on the charging head, wherein the stop is configured to engage a protrusion of the charging contact to stop movement of the charging head in the horizontal direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a stop that engages with a protrusion since it was known in the art that stops engaging with protrusions is a widely used method for preventing a device from further moving in a desired direction and protecting the device from impact damage.
Regarding Claims 4 & 19, Pachler further teaches the stop is configured to align the charging head and the charging contact by engaging the protrusion of the charging contact (it would be counterintuitive to have the charging head in an unaligned position to the charging contact when the stop is engaged with the protrusion since the prior art is intending to charge a vehicle).
Regarding Claim 5, Pachler further teaches the actuator is configured to move to an extended position without moving the charging head responsive to the stop engaging (¶0052: lower arm 19 is swivel mounted to upper arm 16 at axis 27, allowing for horizontal movement of the mount 22, which would allow the actuator/motor to continue to extend without moving the charging head when the stop is engaged).
Pachler teaches the claimed invention except for it does not specify a stop on the charging head, engaging an end portion of the charging contact. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a stop that engages with an end portion of the charging contact since it was known in the art that stops can have various designs, e.g. an end stopper, a protruding stopper perpendicular to the movement plane, or a hook that extends perpendicular to the movement plane, for preventing movement in a desired direction.
Regarding Claims 6 & 20, Pachler teaches the stop includes a hook feature configured to engage the charging contact to prevent the stop from riding over the charging contact (as disclosed in the rejection above, a hook that extends, in which the purpose of a hook is to prevent movement in two directions).
Regarding Claim 7, Pachler further teaches comprising one or more sensors (61) configured to detect an extended position of the actuator and a retracted position of the actuator (¶0055: relative distance).
Regarding Claim 12, Pachler further teaches aligning the charging head and the charging contacts (¶0001: connection between a charging station and a vehicle would include aligning the charging head and charging contacts).
Pachler teaches the claimed invention except for it does not specify aligning is done by engaging a stop on the charging head with an end portion of the charging contact. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a stop that engages with an end portion of the charging contact which aligns the charging head with the charging contacts since it was known in the art that stops can have various designs, e.g. an end stopper, a protruding stopper perpendicular to the movement plane, or a hook that extends perpendicular to the movement plane, and are widely used for preventing movement in a desired direction.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachler, in view of Schluter et al. (USPGPN 2023/0249561 – filed 2021).
Regarding Claim 8, Pachler fails to explicitly teach wherein the charging contact includes conductive rails that are parallel, the charging head includes conductor rails oriented perpendicular to the conductive rails, and further comprising an extension on the conductor rails configured to move along the conductive rails, the extension configured to prevent misalignment of the conductor rails in a space between the conductive rails.
However, Schluter (Figs. 2 & 4) teaches a charging contact (200) which includes conductive rails (216 and 220) that are parallel (Fig.4 shows parallel orientation), the charging head (206) includes conductor rails (204 and 208) oriented perpendicular to the conductive rails (Fig.4 shows perpendicular orientation to conductive rails), and further comprising an extension on the conductor rails configured to move along the conductive rails (Fig.4, conductor rails are wider than the conductive rails and span the entire width), the extension configured to prevent misalignment of the conductor rails in a space between the conductive rails (the extended conductor rail prevents the rails from falling into the space between the conductive rails).
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 Pachler with Schluter to have the charging contact include conductive rails that are parallel, the charging head includes conductor rails oriented perpendicular to the conductive rails, and further comprising an extension on the conductor rails configured to move along the conductive rails, the extension configured to prevent misalignment of the conductor rails in a space between the conductive rails. Doing so provides a solution to the drawbacks of mounting a pantograph charging interface to a vehicle by providing a charging system for the vehicle mounted above the vehicle (as evidenced by Schluter (¶0004-0005).
Claim(s) 13 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachler, in view of Shin et al. (Korean Publication KR 102428540 B1).
Regarding Claim 13, Pachler fails to explicitly teach sensing one or more electrical characteristics of at least one of the charging assembly or the charging contact.
However, Shin teaches a vehicle charger which senses an electrical characteristic of a charging contact (Abstract: contact resistance measurement from current and voltage measurements) which is used to determine a connection strength (Abstract: calculated contact resistance is used to control and block a charging current, indicating there is a desired contact resistance).
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 Pachler with Shin to include sensing an electrical characteristic of a charging contact. Doing so helps prevent overheating or fires, as evidenced by Shin (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, Pachler, as modified, further teaches determining a connection strength of the charging assembly and the charging contact of the vehicle based on the one or more electrical characteristics (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the spring configured to provide a limited amount of actuator force responsive to the connection portion being decoupled resulting in one or more of a downward force or a rightward force on the charging head”. The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or suggest this limitation in combination with all other limitations recited in the claim.
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