DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 11/10/’2025, with respect to rejection of claims under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 & 11-18 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the cab". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cab". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a cab". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namuduri et al (US2022/0285959) in view of Sun et al (US2016/0052409).
An electric vehicle (10/12, fig. 1) comprising a battery (28 or 38 or 182/184) and an external charging port on the vehicle (fig. 8 at 168/170, ¶0019 last phrase), the vehicle further comprising:
a charging interlock system comprising a charging interlock module (¶0040 “safety interlock feature”, claim 7) configured to:
when engaged, prevent movement of the vehicle during a battery charging procedure (claim 7 “a safety interlock feature preventing moving the mobile unit when the mobile unit is plugged into at least one of a load and a charger; and the safety interlock feature also defining a manual service disconnect to manually isolate the battery” also ¶0011) executable by a battery charging technician outside the vehicle, and
when disengaged (¶0040 “A manual service disconnect 40 is provided to manually isolate the battery 28….a safety interlock feature to prevent moving the mobile unit 12 when it is plugged into a load or a charger….To enable the safety interlock feature of the manual service disconnect 40”) by the battery charging technician following the battery charging procedure allow movement of the vehicle.
Namudari discloses “manual service disconnect 40” to stop charging after charging has begun. However, Namudari does not disclose a battery charging technician.
Sun discloses a charging setup with a battery charging technician (¶0015 “vehicle may interact with a service tool administrated by a technician to run a charging routine”). At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in this at it would have been well known to improve the functioning of the operation of the system of Namudari with a dedicated technician as taught by Sun. A motivation for this would be to provide convenience and added safety to the vehicle operator. Examiner also notes that in the applicant’s Background section of the specification in paragraph 0004 the applicant states that using a “charging technician” is well known.
Claim 7 Namudari discloses the vehicle of claim 1 wherein the interlock system comprises a switch (“manual service disconnect 40” see fig. 2) actuatable by the battery charging technician to disengage the charging interlock system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-6, 8-10 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.
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 .