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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 9/30/2025. Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11-14, 18, and 30 are amended. Claims 2, 10, 19-29, and 31-35 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-18, and 30 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/21/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 refers to the second signal sender with no antecedent basis provided.
For further examination on the merits, Examiner will interpret the claim as referring to a second signal sender.
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 9 and 30 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.
Claim 9
The second signal sender that sends the wake-up signal is referred to without antecedent basis. It is not clear whether the second signal sender is part of the vehicle’s charging cover control device, the charging device, or external to both. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the charging cover control device in light of the specification is that it is part of the vehicle. See Figs. 2, 3, 7, [0085], [0089], the control device comprises a motor driver that drives the cover. The motor driver and therefore the charging cover control device must be part of the vehicle. the first signal sender sends a wake-up signal to surrounding vehicles. However, the wake-up signal is received by the control device. How this occurs is unclear.
For purposes of further examination on the merits, examiner will interpret the second signal sender as being part of the charging device, and the wake-up signal as having been received by a second electric vehicle and forwarded or relayed to the charging device, which then begins communication with the charging cover control device of the first vehicle.
Claim 30
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the charging cover control device in light of the specification is that it is part of the vehicle. See Figs. 2, 3, 7, [0085], [0089], claim 30, the control device comprises a motor driver that drives the cover. The motor driver and therefore the charging cover control device must be part of the vehicle. The first signal sender sends a wake-up signal to surrounding vehicles. However, the wake-up signal is received by the charging device. How this occurs is unclear.
For purposes of further examination on the merits, Examiner will interpret the wake-up signal as having been received by a second electric vehicle and forwarded or relayed to the charging device, which then begins communication with the charging cover control device of the first vehicle.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20200101849 A1, hereinafter “Ghabra”, in view of CN 104463267 A, hereinafter “Rao”, KR 20100137950 A, hereinafter “Um”, CN 106809287 A, hereinafter “Liu”, and US 20110099144 A1, hereinafter “Levy”.
Regarding claim 1, Ghabra, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses A charging device of an electric vehicle, comprising (See [0001], the vehicle is electric. See [0003], the invention opens the charge port door as part of a charging process, i.e. is a charging device.), comprising: a first signal receiver, a response controller, an encoder and a first signal sender (See [0021]-[0022], the charging cord handle sends an RF signal in response to the vehicle’s LF polling signal based on a determination of the LF polling signal’s strength. The controller is therefore a response controller. The charging cord handle receives the LF signal, i.e. comprises a first signal receiver. See [0021]-[0022], the charging cord handle sends an RF signal in response to the vehicle’s LF polling signal based on a determination of the LF polling signal’s strength. The controller necessarily an encoder because it encodes the instructions for transmission over radio. The RF transceiver is a first signal sender. ) wherein
the first signal receiver is configured to, when the charging device enters the coverage range of a wake-up signal sent by the electric vehicle to surrounding charging devices, receive the wake-up signal and send the wake-up signal to the response controller, wherein the wake-up signal is configured to activate the charging device to communicate with the electric vehicle and comprises an activation code for activating the response controller the response controller is configured to send a first control instruction to the encoder when receiving a startup instruction, wherein the first control instruction comprises identity information for identifying the charging device (See [0021]-[0022], the vehicle broadcasts an LF polling signal, i.e. wake-up signal. The charging cord handle sends an RF signal in response to the vehicle’s LF polling signal, i.e. the charging cord handle is activated to communicate with the vehicle by receiving the polling signal because it takes specific actions in response. The controller is a response controller. The charging cord handle receives the LF signal, i.e. comprises a first signal receiver. The vehicle uses the charging cord identifier, i.e. activation code and identity information, sent by the charging device to verify the charging cord before opening the charge port door. Authentication of the charging cord handle by the vehicle indicates that the vehicle enters communication with devices it has not authorized to operate its charge door, i.e. multiple charging devices within broadcast range. Signals are inherently received when the transmitter is in the coverage, i.e. broadcast, range. See [0024], the polling signal can be the same as a polling signal used for a passive entry system. This indicates that the polling signal occurs continuously, otherwise a specific action on the part of an operator would be required to transmit the signal, i.e. the system would not be passive. This means that the polling signal is received by the device as the vehicle enters the broadcast range.); and
the response controller is further configured to receive and verify the wake-up signal, and start and work to send the first control instruction to the encoder when the verification of the activation code in the wake-up signal is successful, or sleep when the verification is failed (See [0021]-[0022], the charging device sends an RF signal response, comprising the first control instruction, to the vehicle in response to the polling signal. This means the device has verified that it has received the polling signal, i.e. wake-up signal. Signals are necessarily encoded by an encoder when transmitted over radio. The charging cord handle sends no specific response, i.e. sleeps, if no polling signal is received.);
the encoder is configured to receive and send the first control instruction to the first signal sender (See [0025], the charging cord sends an RF signal to the vehicle. Signals are necessarily encoded by an encoder when transmitted over radio. They must be received before encoding.); and the first signal sender is configured to send the first control instruction to the electric vehicle, so that a charging cover of the electric vehicle is in an open status (See [0025], in response to receiving the RF signal sent by the charging chord, the vehicle opens the charge port door, i.e. puts the charging cover into open status.).
Ghabra does not explicitly disclose driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver, encrypt, encrypted, or the charging device is configured to, during the charging of the electric vehicle, continuously send the first control instruction to a charging cover control device, and a charging cover control instruction keeps, as long as the verification of the identity information is successful, the charging cover in an open status by driving the charging cover motor, or the charging device is configured to when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, consider that the charging is finished and indicate the response controller to be turned off. Rao, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses encrypt and encrypted (See [0016]-[0024], the charging station decrypts the ID information. See Abstract, [0006], and Claim 1, the entire communication channel between the charging station and vehicle RFID label are encrypted. See [0007]-[0028] for an explanation of the encryption process, most importantly [0011]-[0016], the tag encrypts its response to the reader. This means that the data is encrypted before transmission. See [0006], the reader mounted to the electric vehicle charging station obtains the information transmitted by the RFID label.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra to include the use of encryption during exchange of data, and, consequently, decryption of the data of Rao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide safer authentication, as suggested by Rao at [0003].
Ghabra combined with Rao does not explicitly disclose driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver, the charging device is configured to, during the charging of the electric vehicle, continuously send the first control instruction to a charging cover control device, and a charging cover control instruction keeps, as long as the verification of the identity information is successful, the charging cover in an open status by driving the charging cover motor or the charging device is configured to when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, consider that the charging is finished and indicate the response controller to be turned off.
Um, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses the charging device is configured to, during the charging of the electric vehicle, continuously send the first control instruction to a charging cover control device, and a charging cover control instruction keeps, as long as the verification of the identity information is successful, the charging cover in an open status by driving the charging cover motor (See page 7 paragraph 5-11, the user possesses an RFID card. RFID cars inherently emit an identification signal. The microprocessor that controls opening and closing the door receives the RFID signal. If the user is successfully authenticated using the RFID signal, the door is automatically opened. The RFID card continuously sends its signal to the RFID receiver. When the continuous signal is maintained, the door does not automatically close, i.e. is kept in an open status). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra, and Rao to include keeping the door open as long as the continually emitted identification signal is received of Um. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve convenience of opening and shutting the door, as suggested by Um at page 1 paragraph 4.
Ghabra combined with Rao and Um does not explicitly disclose driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver or the charging device is configured to when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, consider that the charging is finished and indicate the response controller to be turned off.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver (See page 3 paragraph 12-page 4 paragraph 1, the stepping motor is connected indirectly to the charging cover, and its action opens the charging cover.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra and Rao to include the use of a motor driver to open the charge cover of Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow automatic and convenient opening and closing of the charging cover, as suggested by Liu at page 1 paragraph 1.
Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, and Liu does not explicitly disclose the charging device is configured to when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, consider that the charging is finished and indicate the response controller to be turned off.
Levy, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses the charging device is configured to when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, consider that the charging is finished and indicate the response controller to be turned off (See [0042], when the battery charge event is completed, the battery controller notifies the charge station using a radio, i.e. radio transmitter. The charge complete notification is sent from the vehicle to the charge station. The charge station then returns to the idle state. i.e. the response controller is inactive and turned off. It would be obvious to try, with a reasonable chance of success, using the discontinuation of the wake-up signal of Ghabra as the charge complete notification in order to reduce the number of necessary signals.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra, Rao, Um, and Liu to include determining the charging is done when a signal is sent from the vehicle, specifically a discontinuation of the wake-up signal indicating a need to charge, as suggested by Levy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow convenient control of the charging operation by wireless communication between charging station at vehicle, as suggested by Levy at [0002]-[0003].
Regarding claim 3, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Ghabra further discloses wherein the response controller is configured to stop sending the first control instruction to the electric vehicle when the wake-up signal is not received, so that the charging cover of the electric vehicle is in a closed status (See [0022], RF response, i.e. control instruction to the electric vehicle, is sent when the strength of the LF polling signal, i.e. the wake-up signal, exceeds a certain strength, i.e. is received, which opens the door. This indicates, conversely, that the RF response is not sent, i.e. transmission is stopped, when the LF polling signal does not exceed the threshold, i.e. is not received, the door is not opened, i.e. is in a closed status.).
Regarding claim 4, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy renders obvious the limitations of claim 3. Ghabra further discloses wherein the response controller is configured to send a second control instruction to the encoder when the wake-up signal is not received, wherein the second control instruction comprises identity information for identifying the charging device (See [0025], the charging cord handle may transmit an LF polling signal, without first receiving a signal from the vehicle, i.e. when the wake-up signal is not received. The charging cord handle then sends an RF signal, i.e. a second control instruction, comprising charging cord identification, i.e. identity information. See [0022], the controller determines the RF signals to send. The controller therefore is also an encoder. Since the RF signal is sent, it must pass through the controller, i.e. encoder.); the encoder is configured to receive the second control instruction, and send second control instruction to the first signal sender (See [0025], the charging cord handle may transmit an LF polling signal, without first receiving a signal from the vehicle, i.e. when the wake-up signal is not received. The charging cord handle then sends an RF signal, i.e. a second control instruction, through an RF transceiver, i.e. first signal sender. See [0022], the controller determines the RF signals to send. The controller therefore is also an encoder. Since the RF signal is sent, it must pass through the encoder to the RF transceiver.); and the first signal sender is configured to send the second control instruction to the electric vehicle (See [0025], the RF signal is sent from the charging cord to the vehicle.). Rao, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses encrypt and encrypted (See Abstract, [0006], and Claim 1, the entire communication channel between the charging station and vehicle RFID label are encrypted. See [0007]-[0028] for an explanation of the encryption process, most importantly [0011]-[0016], the tag encrypts its response to the reader. This means that the data is encrypted before transmission. See [0006], the reader mounted to the electric vehicle charging station obtains the information transmitted by the RFID label.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel to include the use of encryption during exchange of data of Rao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide safer authentication, as suggested by Rao at [0003]. Liu, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses so that the charging cover of the electric vehicle is in a closed status (See page 4 paragraph 3, the charging pile wirelessly directs the vehicle to automatically close the charging cover. See page 3 paragraph 2, the charging cover is the electric vehicle charging cover.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra, Rao, Um, Levy, and Uziel to include automatically closing the charging cover as disclosed by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order improve efficiency of the charging process for the user and improve safety, as suggested by Liu at page 3 paragraphs 3-4. Regarding claim 5, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy renders obvious the limitations of claim 4. Ghabra further discloses wherein the wake-up signal is one of a low frequency signal, a radio frequency signal, a Bluetooth signal, a mobile communication signal, a WIFI signal or an infrared signal (See [0032] and Figure 5, the LF transceiver detects a polling signal broadcast from the vehicle in order to establish a wireless communication link with the charging cord. The polling signal is therefore a wake-up signal and a low frequency signal.); the first control instruction is one of a low frequency signal, a radio frequency signal, a Bluetooth signal, a mobile communication signal, a WIFI signal or an infrared signal (See [0032], an RF response signal, i.e. first control instruction and a radio frequency signal, is sent to the vehicle.); and the second control instruction is one of a low frequency signal, a radio frequency signal, a Bluetooth signal, a mobile communication signal, a WIFI signal or an infrared signal (See [0025], the charging cord handle may transmit an LF polling signal, without first receiving a signal from the vehicle, i.e. when the wake-up signal is not received. The charging cord handle then sends an RF signal, i.e. a second control instruction and a radio frequency signal.).
Regarding claim 6, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy renders obvious the limitations of claim 5. Ghabra further discloses wherein the wake-up signal is the low-frequency signal (See [0032] and Figure 5, the LF transceiver detects a polling signal broadcast from the vehicle in order to establish a wireless communication link with the charging cord. The polling signal is therefore a wake-up signal and a low-frequency signal.), the first control instruction is the radio-frequency signal (See [0032], an RF response signal, i.e. first control instruction and a radio-frequency signal, is sent to the vehicle.), and the second control instruction is the radio-frequency signal (See [0025], the charging cord handle may transmit an LF polling signal, without first receiving a signal from the vehicle, i.e. when the wake-up signal is not received. The charging cord handle then sends an RF signal, i.e. a second control instruction and a radio-frequency signal.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy, in view of NPL documents “Radio Spectrum”, “Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies”, “How to Minimize Radio Frequency Interference”, and “Terahertz Radiation”.
Regarding claim 7, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy renders obvious the limitations of claim 6. Ghabra further discloses wherein a frequency of the wake- up signal is 30 KHz to 300 KHz (See [0032] and Figure 5, the LF transceiver detects a polling signal broadcast from the vehicle in order to establish a wireless communication link with the charging cord. The polling signal is therefore a wake-up signal and a low-frequency signal.), as explained by NPL document “Radio Spectrum” (See page 2 paragraphs 3-6 and page 3, low frequency signals are inherently in the frequency range of 30KHz to 300KHz.); and a frequency of the first control instruction is 3Hz to 3,000 GHz, and a frequency of the second control instruction is 3 Hz to 3,000 GHz (See [0032], an RF response signal, i.e. first control instruction and a radio-frequency signal, is sent to the vehicle. The charging cord handle may transmit an LF polling signal, without first receiving a signal from the vehicle, i.e. when the wake-up signal is not received. The charging cord handle then sends an RF signal, i.e. a second control instruction and a radio-frequency signal.), as explained by “Radio Spectrum” (See page 2 paragraphs 3-6 and page 3, radio frequency (RF) signals are inherently in the frequency range of 3 Hz to 3,000Ghz.). Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy does not explicitly disclose a frequency of the first control instruction is 300 KHz to 300 GHz, and a frequency of the second control instruction is 300 KHz to 300 GHz. NPL document “Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies” renders obvious a frequency of the first control instruction is at least 30 KHz, and a frequency of the second control instruction is at least 30 KHz (See page 2 paragraph 5, frequencies in the VLF range or lower are not useful for transmitting large amounts of data. See further the table on paragraph 1, the VLF range consists of frequencies below 30 kHz.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for charging station authentication and control disclosed by Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy to include transmitting control instructions in a frequency range of at least 30Khz, as suggested by “Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because frequency ranges lower than 30Khz are not suitable for transmitting large amounts of data, as suggested by “Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies” at page 2 paragraph 5. NPL document “How to Minimize Radio Frequency Interference” renders obvious a frequency of the first control instruction is at least 300 KHz, and a frequency of the second control instruction is at least 300 KHz (See page 6 radio transmitters operating in close frequency channels can overlap and cause interference, and page 9, using multiple center frequencies can avoid frequency overlap and interference). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for charging station authentication and control disclosed by Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and “Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies” to include the keeping the frequencies for control instructions outside of the range already designated for use by the wake-up signals as taught by “How to Minimize Radio Frequency Interference”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because keeping the control instructions out of the frequency ranges already designated for wake-up signals would prevent interference between the two kinds of signals, as suggested by “How to Minimize Radio Frequency Interference” and page 9. NPL document “Terahertz Radiation” renders obvious a frequency of the first control instruction is at most 300 GHz, and a frequency of the second control instruction is at most 300 GHz (See page 1 paragraph 1, teraherz radiation is electromagnetic waves within the frequency range of .3 THz, i.e. 300 GHz, up to 3 THz, i.e. 3,000 GHz. See page 1 paragraph 2, terahertz radiation is attenuated to zero within a few meters and therefore not usable for terrestrial radio communication.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for charging station authentication and control disclosed by Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, “Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies”, and “How to Minimize Radio Frequency Interference” to include the keeping the frequencies for control instructions below the terahertz range, as suggested by “Terahertz Radiation”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because keeping the control instructions out of the Terahertz frequency ranges would allow for communication over more than a few meters, as suggested by “Terahertz Radiation” at page 1 paragraph 2. The above combination of references and arguments for obvious ranges of frequencies for the control instructions has narrowed the range of 3 Hz to 3,000 GHz disclosed by Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy to an obvious 300 KHz to 300 GHz, matching the original claim and rendering obvious claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy in view of WO 2011020389 A1, hereinafter “Shi”.
Regarding claim 8, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy renders obvious the limitations of claim 6. Ghabra discloses wherein a low- frequency antenna is provided in the first signal receiver (See [0021], an LF antenna is coupled to the LF transceiver, i.e. first signal receiver.). Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel does not explicitly disclose a three-dimensional low- frequency antenna. Shi, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses a three-dimensional low- frequency antenna (See Abstract and the application generally). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for charging station authentication and control disclosed by Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy to include the three-dimensional low-frequency antenna of Shi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because use of the three-dimensional antenna would allow for use of a smaller antenna, improving convenience, and lower manufacturing costs, as suggested by Shi in Abstract.
Claims 9, 11, 14-15, 16, 18, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, Levy and US 20220046659 A1, hereinafter “Uziel”.
Regarding claim 9, Ghabra, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses A charging cover control device of an electric vehicle, (See [0001], the vehicle is electric. See [0003], the invention opens the charge port door and is therefore a charging cover control device.), comprising: a second signal receiver, a decoder, and a processor (See [0023], an RF signal is sent to the vehicle and received by an RF transceiver, which is a signal receiver. The controller, i.e. processor, at the vehicle verifies that the charging cable is authorized for use. Examiner asserts that this indicates a decoder was necessarily used and is therefore part of the disclosed invention.);
the second signal sender is configured to continuously send a wake-up signal when the electric vehicle needs to be charged, wherein the wake-up signal is configured to activate the charging device to communicate with the electric vehicle and comprises an activation code for activating the charging device, so that a response controller in a charging device starts and works to send a first control instruction to the charging cover control device of the electric vehicle when the verification of the activation code in the wake-up signal is successful, or sleeps when the verification is failed (See [0021]-[0022], the vehicle broadcasts an LF polling signal, i.e. wake-up signal, which is necessarily sent by a signal sender, i.e. second signal sender. The charging cord handle sends an RF signal in response to the vehicle’s LF polling signal, i.e. the charging cord handle is activated to communicate with the vehicle by receiving the polling signal because it takes specific actions in response. The controller is a response controller. The charging cord handle receives the LF signal, i.e. comprises a first signal receiver. The vehicle uses the charging cord identifier, i.e. activation code and identity information, sent by the charging device to verify the charging cord before opening the charge port door. Opening of the charge port door indicates that the vehicle needs to charge. Authentication of the charging cord handle by the vehicle indicates that the vehicle enters communication with devices it has not authorized to operate its charge door, i.e. multiple charging devices within broadcast range. Signals are inherently received when the transmitter is in the coverage, i.e. broadcast, range. See [0024], the polling signal can be the same as a polling signal used for a passive entry system. This indicates that the polling signal occurs continuously, otherwise a specific action on the part of an operator would be required to transmit the signal, i.e. the system would not be passive. The system does not take any specific response if the verification fails, i.e. sleeps. ); the second signal receiver is configured to receive a first control instruction sent by the charging device and send the first control instruction to the decoder, wherein the first control instruction comprises identity information for identifying the charging device (See [0023], an RF signal, i.e. first control instruction, is sent to the vehicle. The control instruction is necessarily received by a signal receiver, i.e. second signal receiver. The controller verifies that the charging cable is authorized for use based on the charging cord identifier. The control instruction therefore comprises identity information. Examiner asserts that use of information from the signal indicates a decoder was necessarily used.); the processor is configured to receive first control instruction, verify the identity information in the first control instruction, and send a cover open instruction indicating to open the charging cover when the verification of the identity information is successful (See [0023], the controller verifies that the charging cord is authorized for use based on the identifier, i.e. verifies the identity information, and opens the charge port door if cord is authorized.); and based on the cover open instruction to make the charging cover in an open status (See [0023], the controller transmits a signal to the charge port module instructing it to open the door, i.e. a cover open instruction.). Ghabra does not explicitly disclose a motor driver, decrypt, decrypted, the charging device continuously is configured to, during the charging of the electric vehicle, send the first control instruction to a charging cover control device, and a charging cover control instruction keeps, as long as the verification of the identity information is successful, the charging cover in an open status by driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver, the charging device is configured to, when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, consider that the charging is finished and indicate the response controller to be turned off, or send a wake-up signal to surrounding electric vehicles. Rao, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses decrypt and decrypted (See [0016]-[0024], the charging station decrypts the ID information. See Abstract, [0006], and Claim 1, the entire communication channel between the charging station and vehicle RFID label are encrypted. See [0007]-[0028] for an explanation of the encryption process, most importantly [0011]-[0016], the tag encrypts its response to the reader. This means that the data is encrypted before transmission. See [0006], the reader mounted to the electric vehicle charging station obtains the information transmitted by the RFID label.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra to include the use of encryption during exchange of data, and, consequently, decryption of the data of Rao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide safer authentication, as suggested by Rao at [0003].
Ghabra combined with Rao does not explicitly disclose a motor driver, the charging device continuously is configured to, during the charging of the electric vehicle, send the first control instruction to a charging cover control device, and a charging cover control instruction keeps, as long as the verification of the identity information is successful, the charging cover in an open status by driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver, the charging device is configured to, when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, consider that the charging is finished and indicate the response controller to be turned off, or send a wake-up signal to surrounding electric vehicles.
Um, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses the charging device continuously is configured to, during the charging of the electric vehicle, send the first control instruction to a charging cover control device, and a charging cover control instruction keeps, as long as the verification of the identity information is successful, the charging cover in an open status (See page 7 paragraph 5-11, the user possesses an RFID card. RFID cars inherently emit an identification signal. The microprocessor that controls opening and closing the door receives the RFID signal. If the user is successfully authenticated using the RFID signal, the door is automatically opened. The RFID card continuously sends its signal to the RFID receiver. When the continuous signal is maintained, the door does not automatically close, i.e. is kept in an open status). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra, and Rao to include keeping the door open as long as the continually emitted identification signal is received of Um. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve convenience of opening and shutting the door, as suggested by Um at page 1 paragraph 4.
Ghabra combined with Rao and Um does not explicitly disclose driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver, the charging device is configured to when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, consider that the charging is finished and indicate the response controller to be turned off, or send a wake-up signal to surrounding electric vehicles.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver (See page 3 paragraph 12-page 4 paragraph 1, the stepping motor is connected indirectly to the charging cover, and its action opens the charging cover.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra and Rao to include the use of a motor driver to open the charge cover of Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow automatic and convenient opening and closing of the charging cover, as suggested by Liu at page 1 paragraph 1.
Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, and Liu does not explicitly disclose the charging device is configured to when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, consider that the charging is finished and indicate the response controller to be turned off or send a wake-up signal to surrounding electric vehicles.
Levy, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses the charging device is configured to when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, consider that the charging is finished and indicate the response controller to be turned off (See [0042], when the battery charge event is completed, the battery controller notifies the charge station using a radio, i.e. radio transmitter. The charge complete notification is sent from the vehicle to the charge station. The charge station then returns to the idle state. i.e. the response controller is inactive and turned off.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra, Rao, Um, and Liu to include determining the charging is done when a signal is sent from the vehicle, specifically a discontinuation of a signal indicating a need to charge, as suggested by Levy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow convenient control of the charging operation by wireless communication between charging station at vehicle, as suggested by Levy at [0002]-[0003].
Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy does not explicitly disclose send a wake-up signal to surrounding electric vehicles.
Uziel, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious send a wake-up signal to surrounding electric vehicles (See [0024]-[0026], Fig. 1, [0029], and [0048]-[0049], the system provides communications between vehicles (V2V) and other devices (V2X). Vehicles can communicate directly with each other to establish a sidelink communications signal as well as with a base station or other use equipment. The sidelink communications signal can be used for message relaying, i.e. forwarding the message sent from one vehicle to a second vehicle to a final piece of user equipment.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for charge port authorization disclosed by Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy to include forwarding the wake-up signal through intermediate vehicles, as suggested by Uziel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve communications reliability, as suggested by Uziel at [0003].
Regarding claim 11, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel renders obvious the limitations of claim 9. Ghabra further discloses wherein the first control instruction further comprises first indication information indicating to open the charging cover (See [0022]-[0023], the controller transmits a signal to the charge port module instructing it to open the door, i.e. information indicating to open the charging port); and the processor is configured to verify the identity information in the first control instruction, and send a cover open instruction indicating to open the charging cover to the motor driver based on the first indication information when the verification of the identity information is successful (See [0023], the controller, i.e. processor, verifies the identity of the charging cord and verifies that it is authorized for use with the charge port before opening the port door.).
Regarding claim 14, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel renders obvious the limitations of claim 9. Ghabra discloses wherein the second signal receiver is configured to receive a second control instruction sent by the charging device and send the second control instruction to the decoder, wherein the second control instruction comprises identity information for identifying the charging device (See [0025], the charging cord handle sends an RF signal, i.e. a second control instruction, comprising charging cord identification, i.e. identity information. The RF signal transceiver at the vehicle, i.e. second signal receiver, receives the transmission.); send second control instruction to the processor (See [0025], the RF signal is processed by the controller, i.e. processor, to verify the charge cable’s identity and possibly open the charge port door. The control instruction was therefore sent to the processor.);
the processor is configured to receive the decrypted second control instruction, verify the identity information in the second control instruction (See [0025], See [0025], the RF signal is processed by the controller, i.e. processor, to verify the charge cable’s identity and possibly open the charge port door. The control instruction was therefore sent to the processor.); and send a cover instruction based on the second indication information when the verification of the identity information is successful (See [0025], the RF signal is processed by the controller, i.e. processor, to verify the charge cable’s identity and possibly open the charge port door. An instruction to open the charge port door, i.e. cover instruction, was therefore sent from the processor to the charge port module.); Rao, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses decrypt and decrypted (See [0016]-[0024], the charging station decrypts the ID information. See Abstract, [0006], and Claim 1, the entire communication channel between the charging station and vehicle RFID label are encrypted. See [0007]-[0028] for an explanation of the encryption process, most importantly [0011]-[0016], the tag encrypts its response to the reader. This means that the data is encrypted before transmission. See [0006], the reader mounted to the electric vehicle charging station obtains the information transmitted by the RFID label.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra combined with, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel to include the use of encryption during exchange of data, and, consequently, decryption of the data of Rao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide safer authentication, as suggested by Rao at [0003]. Liu renders obvious second indication information indicating to close the charging cover (See page 3 paragraph 12-page 4 paragraph 1, the stepping motor is connected indirectly to the charging cover, and its action opens and closes the charging cover. See page 4 paragraph 3, a signal to close the cover is sent to the action executing module.); and send a cover close instruction indicating to close the charging cover to the motor driver (See page 3 paragraph 12-page 4 paragraph 1, the stepping motor is connected indirectly to the charging cover, and its action opens and closes the charging cover. See page 4 paragraph 3, a signal to close the cover is sent to the action executing module.); and the motor driver is configured to drive the charging cover motor based on the cover close instruction to make the charging cover in a closed status (See page 3 paragraph 12-page 4 paragraph 1, the stepping motor is connected indirectly to the charging cover, and its action opens and closes the charging cover. See page 4 paragraph 3, a signal to close the cover is sent to the action executing module.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Levy, and Uziel to include the use of a motor driver to automatically close the charge cover of Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow automatic and convenient opening and closing of the charging cover, as suggested by Liu at page 1 paragraph 1.
Regarding claim 15, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel renders obvious the limitations of claim 14. Ghabra further discloses wherein the wake- up signal is one of a low frequency signal, a radio frequency signal, a Bluetooth signal, a mobile communication signal, a WIFI signal or an infrared signal (See [0032] and Figure 5, the LF transceiver detects a polling signal broadcast from the vehicle in order to establish a wireless communication link with the charging cord. The polling signal is therefore a wake-up signal and a low-frequency signal.), the first control instruction is one of a low frequency signal, a radio frequency signal, a Bluetooth signal, a mobile communication signal, a WIFI signal or an infrared signal (See [0032], an RF response signal, i.e. first control instruction and a radio-frequency signal, is sent to the vehicle.), and the second control instruction is one of a low frequency signal, a radio frequency signal, a Bluetooth signal, a mobile communication signal, a WIFI signal or an infrared signal (See [0025], the charging cord handle may transmit an LF polling signal, without first receiving a signal from the vehicle, i.e. when the wake-up signal is not received. The charging cord handle then sends an RF signal, i.e. a second control instruction and a radio-frequency signal.). Regarding claim 16, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel renders obvious the limitations of claim 15. Ghabra further discloses wherein the wake- up signal is the low-frequency signal (See [0032] and Figure 5, the LF transceiver detects a polling signal broadcast from the vehicle in order to establish a wireless communication link with the charging cord. The polling signal is therefore a wake-up signal and a low-frequency signal.), the first control instruction is the radio-frequency signal (See [0032], an RF response signal, i.e. first control instruction and a radio-frequency signal, is sent to the vehicle.), and the second control instruction is the radio-frequency signal (See [0025], the charging cord handle may transmit an LF polling signal, without first receiving a signal from the vehicle, i.e. when the wake-up signal is not received. The charging cord handle then sends an RF signal, i.e. a second control instruction and a radio-frequency signal.). Regarding claim 18, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel renders obvious the limitations of claim 9. Ghabra further discloses wherein a radio frequency antenna is provided in the second signal receiver (See [0020], the system comprises an RF antenna, i.e. a radio frequency antenna. The antenna is coupled to the RF transceiver. Examiner asserts that the second signal receiver therefore comprises the RF antenna.).
Regarding claim 30, Ghabra, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses A method for controlling a charging cover of an electric vehicle, (See [0001], the vehicle is electric. See [0003], the invention opens the charge port door and is therefore a charging cover control device.), comprising:
continuously sending, by a first signal sender of a charging cover control device, a wake-up signal when the electric vehicle needs to be charged, wherein the wake-up signal is configured to activate the charging device to communicate with the electric vehicle and comprises an activation code for activating the charging device, so that a response controller in a charging device starts and works to send a first control instruction to the charging cover control device of the electric vehicle when the verification of the activation code in the wake-up signal is successful, or sleeps when the verification is failed (See [0021]-[0022], the vehicle broadcasts an LF polling signal, i.e. wake-up signal, which is necessarily sent by a signal sender, i.e. first signal sender. The charging cord handle sends an RF signal in response to the vehicle’s LF polling signal, i.e. the charging cord handle is activated to communicate with the vehicle by receiving the polling signal because it takes specific actions in response. The controller is a response controller. The charging cord handle receives the LF signal, i.e. comprises a first signal receiver. The vehicle uses the charging cord identifier, i.e. activation code and identity information, sent by the charging device to verify the charging cord before opening the charge port door. Opening of the charge port door indicates that the vehicle needs to charge. Authentication of the charging cord handle by the vehicle indicates that the vehicle enters communication with devices it has not authorized to operate its charge door, i.e. multiple charging devices within broadcast range. Signals are inherently received when the transmitter is in the coverage, i.e. broadcast, range. See [0024], the polling signal can be the same as a polling signal used for a passive entry system. This indicates that the polling signal occurs continuously, otherwise a specific action on the part of an operator would be required to transmit the signal, i.e. the system would not be passive. The system does not take any specific response if the verification fails, i.e. sleeps. );
receiving and verifying, by a response controller of a charging device, the wake-up signal, and considering, when the verification of the activation code in the wake-up signal is successful, to have received a startup instruction indicating the response controller to start, so that the response controller start and work to generate a first control instruction, and sending first control instruction to the charging cover control device, wherein the first control instruction comprises identity information for identifying the charging device (See [0021]-[0022], The charging cord handle sends an RF signal in response to the vehicle’s LF polling signal. The vehicle uses the charging cord identifier, i.e. activation code and identity information, sent by the charging device to verify the charging cord before opening the charge port door. See [0023], the controller transmits a signal to the charge port module instructing it to open the door, i.e. a cover open instruction.);
receiving the first control instruction and verifying the identity information in the first control instruction (See [0021]-[0022], The charging cord handle sends an RF signal in response to the vehicle’s LF polling signal. The vehicle uses the charging cord identifier, i.e. activation code and identity information, sent by the charging device to verify the charging cord before opening the charge port door. See [0023], the controller transmits a signal to the charge port module instructing it to open the door, i.e. a cover open instruction. ); and
when the verification of the identity information is successful, generating a cover open instruction indicating to open the charging cover, so as to make the charging cover in an open status (See [0021]-[0022], The charging cord handle sends an RF signal in response to the vehicle’s LF polling signal. The vehicle uses the charging cord identifier, i.e. activation code and identity information, sent by the charging device to verify the charging cord before opening the charge port door, i.e. make the charging cover in an open status.). Ghabra does not explicitly disclose to surrounding electric vehicles, a motor driver, encrypt, encrypted, decrypt, decrypted, continuously sending, by the charging device during the charging of the electric vehicle, the first control instruction to a charging cover control device, and keeping, by a charging cover control instruction and as long as the verification of the identity information is successful, the charging cover in an open status by driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver, or considering that, by the charging device, when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, the charging is finished and indicating, by the charging device, the response controller to be turned off. Rao, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses encrypt, encrypted, decrypt, and decrypted (See [0016]-[0024], the charging station decrypts the ID information. See Abstract, [0006], and Claim 1, the entire communication channel between the charging station and vehicle RFID label are encrypted. See [0007]-[0028] for an explanation of the encryption process, most importantly [0011]-[0016], the tag encrypts its response to the reader. This means that the data is encrypted before transmission and decrypted after reception. See [0006], the reader mounted to the electric vehicle charging station obtains the information transmitted by the RFID label.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra to include the use of encryption during exchange of data, and, consequently, decryption of the data of Rao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide safer authentication, as suggested by Rao at [0003].
Ghabra combined with Rao does not explicitly disclose to surrounding electric vehicles, continuously sending, by the charging device during the charging of the electric vehicle, the first control instruction to a charging cover control device, and keeping, by a charging cover control instruction and as long as the verification of the identity information is successful, the charging cover in an open status by driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver, or considering that, by the charging device, when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, the charging is finished and indicating, by the charging device, the response controller to be turned off.
Um, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses to surrounding electric vehicles, continuously sending, by the charging device during the charging of the electric vehicle, the first control instruction to a charging cover control device, and keeping, by a charging cover control instruction and as long as the verification of the identity information is successful, the charging cover in an open status (See page 7 paragraph 5-11, the user possesses an RFID card. RFID cars inherently emit an identification signal. The microprocessor that controls opening and closing the door receives the RFID signal. If the user is successfully authenticated using the RFID signal, the door is automatically opened. The RFID card continuously sends its signal to the RFID receiver. When the continuous signal is maintained, the door does not automatically close, i.e. is kept in an open status). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra, and Rao to include keeping the door open as long as the continually emitted identification signal is received of Um. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve convenience of opening and shutting the door, as suggested by Um at page 1 paragraph 4.
Ghabra combined with Rao and Um does not explicitly disclose to surrounding electric vehicles, driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver or considering that, by the charging device, when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, the charging is finished and indicating, by the charging device, the response controller to be turned off.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver (See page 3 paragraph 12-page 4 paragraph 1, the stepping motor is connected indirectly to the charging cover, and its action opens the charging cover.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra and Rao to include the use of a motor driver to open the charge cover of Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow automatic and convenient opening and closing of the charging cover, as suggested by Liu at page 1 paragraph 1.
Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, and Liu does not explicitly disclose to surrounding electric vehicles, or considering that, by the charging device, when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, the charging is finished and indicating, by the charging device, the response controller to be turned off.
Levy, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses considering that, by the charging device, when the charging device no longer receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, the charging is finished and indicating, by the charging device, the response controller to be turned off (See [0042], when the battery charge event is completed, the battery controller notifies the charge station using a radio, i.e. radio transmitter. The charge complete notification is sent from the vehicle to the charge station. The charge station then returns to the idle state. i.e. the response controller is inactive and turned off.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra, Rao, Um, and Liu to include determining the charging is done when a signal is sent from the vehicle, specifically a discontinuation of a signal indicating a need to charge, as suggested by Levy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow convenient control of the charging operation by wireless communication between charging station at vehicle, as suggested by Levy at [0002]-[0003].
Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy does not explicitly disclose to surrounding electric vehicles.
Uziel, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious to surrounding electric vehicles (See [0024]-[0026], Fig. 1, [0029], and [0048]-[0049], the system provides communications between vehicles (V2V) and other devices (V2X). Vehicles can communicate directly with each other to establish a sidelink communications signal as well as with a base station or other use equipment. The sidelink communications signal can be used for message relaying, i.e. forwarding the message sent from one vehicle to a second vehicle to a final piece of user equipment.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for charge port authorization disclosed by Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, and Levy to include forwarding the wake-up signal through intermediate vehicles, as suggested by Uziel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve communications reliability, as suggested by Uziel at [0003].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel in view of KR 20100130676 A, hereinafter “Park”.
Regarding claim 12, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel renders obvious the limitations of claim 9. Ghabra discloses wherein the processor is configured to verify the identity information in the first control instruction (See [0023], the controller, i.e. processor, verifies the identity of the charging cord and verifies that it is authorized for use with the charge port before opening the port door). Liu discloses motor driver (See page 3 paragraph 12-page 4 paragraph 1, the stepping motor is connected indirectly to the charging cover, and its action opens the charging cover). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra combined with Rao, Um,, Levy, and Uziel to include the use of a motor driver to open the charge cover of Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow automatic and convenient opening and closing of the charging cover, as suggested by Liu at page 1 paragraph 1. Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel does not explicitly disclose and send a cover close instruction indicating to close the charging cover when the verification of the identity information is failed or cover close instruction to make the charging cover in a closed status. Park, in the same field of endeavor, renders obvious close instruction indicating to close the charging cover when the verification of the identity information is failed (See page 5 paragraph 9, the door reads RFID tag information, i.e. identity information, transmits it to a server, and closes the door based on the response of the server, i.e. when the verification of the identity information fails.); and cover close instruction to make the charging cover in a closed status (See page 5 paragraph 9, the door reads RFID tag information, i.e. identity information, transmits it to a server, and closes the door based on the response of the server, i.e. when the verification of the identity information fails.) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel to include closing the door when the verification of identity information fails of Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent unauthorized devices from accessing the charging port, as suggested by Park at page 1 paragraph 3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel in further view of CN 110593678 A, hereinafter “Xiong”.
Regarding claim 13, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel renders obvious the limitations of claim 9. Liu renders obvious wherein the processor is configured to send a cover close instruction indicating to close the charging cover to the motor driver (See page 3 paragraph 12-page 4 paragraph 1, the stepping motor is connected indirectly to the charging cover, and its action opens and closes the charging cover. See page 4 paragraph 3, a signal to close the cover is sent to the action executing module.) and; the motor driver is configured to drive the charging cover motor based on the cover close instruction to make the charging cover in a closed status (See page 3 paragraph 12-page 4 paragraph 1, the stepping motor is connected indirectly to the charging cover, and its action opens and closes the charging cover. See page 4 paragraph 3, a signal to close the cover is sent to the action executing module.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Levy, and Uziel to include the use of a motor driver to automatically close the charge cover of Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow automatic and convenient opening and closing of the charging cover, as suggested by Liu at page 1 paragraph 1. Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel does not explicitly disclose when the first control instruction is not received. Xiong, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious when the first control instruction is not received (See page 4 paragraph 12-page page 5 paragraph 14, the device opens and closes the charging cover in response to camera data containing an instruction to open or close the cover, including when no identification data is received over wireless authentication of the user.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge port authorization system disclosed by Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel to include closing the port in response to camera data instead of a radio frequency control instruction, as disclosed by Xiong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow redundancy in the control of the cover and improve the user experience, as suggested by Xiong at page 1 paragraph 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ghabra, Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel in view of NPL documents “Radio Spectrum”, “Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies”, “How to Minimize Radio Frequency Interference”, and “Terahertz Radiation”.
Regarding claim 17, Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel renders obvious the limitations of claim 16. Ghabra further discloses wherein a frequency of the wake- up signal is 30 KHz to 300 KHz (See [0032] and Figure 5, the LF transceiver detects a polling signal broadcast from the vehicle in order to establish a wireless communication link with the charging cord. The polling signal is therefore a wake-up signal and a low-frequency signal.), as explained by NPL document “Radio Spectrum” (See page 2 paragraphs 3-6 and page 3, low frequency signals are inherently in the frequency range of 30KHz to 300KHz.); and a frequency of the first control instruction is 3Hz to 3,000 GHz, and a frequency of the second control instruction is 3 Hz to 3,000 GHz (See [0032], an RF response signal, i.e. first control instruction and a radio-frequency signal, is sent to the vehicle. The charging cord handle may transmit an LF polling signal, without first receiving a signal from the vehicle, i.e. when the wake-up signal is not received. The charging cord handle then sends an RF signal, i.e. a second control instruction and a radio-frequency signal.), as explained by “Radio Spectrum” (See page 2 paragraphs 3-6 and page 3, radio frequency (RF) signals are inherently in the frequency range of 3 Hz to 3,000Ghz.). Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel does not explicitly disclose a frequency of the first control instruction is 300 KHz to 300 GHz, and a frequency of the second control instruction is 300 KHz to 300 GHz. NPL document “Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies” renders obvious a frequency of the first control instruction is at least 30 KHz, and a frequency of the second control instruction is at least 30 KHz (See page 2 paragraph 5, frequencies in the VLF range or lower are not useful for transmitting large amounts of data. See further the table on paragraph 1, the VLF range consists of frequencies below 30 kHz.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for charging station authentication and control disclosed by Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, and Uziel to include transmitting control instructions in a frequency range of at least 30Khz, as suggested by “Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because frequency ranges lower than 30Khz are not suitable for transmitting large amounts of data, as suggested by “Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies” at page 2 paragraph 5. NPL document “How to Minimize Radio Frequency Interference” renders obvious a frequency of the first control instruction is at least 300 KHz, and a frequency of the second control instruction is at least 300 KHz (See page 6 radio transmitters operating in close frequency channels can overlap and cause interference, and page 9, using multiple center frequencies can avoid frequency overlap and interference). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for charging station authentication and control disclosed by Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, Uziel and “Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies” to include the keeping the frequencies for control instructions outside of the range already designated for use by the wake-up signals as taught by “How to Minimize Radio Frequency Interference”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because keeping the control instructions out of the frequency ranges already designated for wake-up signals would prevent interference between the two kinds of signals, as suggested by “How to Minimize Radio Frequency Interference” and page 9. NPL document “Terahertz Radiation” renders obvious a frequency of the first control instruction is at most 300 GHz, and a frequency of the second control instruction is at most 300 GHz (See page 1 paragraph 1, teraherz radiation is electromagnetic waves within the frequency range of .3 THz, i.e. 300 GHz, up to 3 THz, i.e. 3,000 GHz. See page 1 paragraph 2, terahertz radiation is attenuated to zero within a few meters and therefore not usable for terrestrial radio communication.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for charging station authentication and control disclosed by Ghabra combined with Rao, Um, Liu, Levy, Uziel, “Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies”, and “How to Minimize Radio Frequency Interference” to include the keeping the frequencies for control instructions below the terahertz range, as suggested by “Terahertz Radiation”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because keeping the control instructions out of the Terahertz frequency ranges would allow for communication over more than a few meters, as suggested by “Terahertz Radiation” at page 1 paragraph 2. The above combination of references and arguments for obvious ranges of frequencies for the control instructions has narrowed the range of 3 Hz to 3,000 GHz disclosed by Ghabra to an obvious 300 KHz to 300 GHz, matching the original claim and rendering obvious claim 7.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant argues “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 has been amended in accordance with the Examiner's suggestions. Accordingly, the objections to claim 1-8 are moot and withdrawal of the objections is respectfully requested.”
As to (A), Examiner agrees that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been overcome by the amendments.
(B) Applicant Argues “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being
unpatentable over Ghabra (US20200101849) in view of Rao (CN104463267). Claims 4-6, 8-11, 14-16, 18, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Ghabra and Rao, in further view of Liu (CN106809287). Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Ghabra, Rao, and Liu, in further view of NPL documents "Radio Spectrum", "Introduction to HF and Lower Frequencies", "How to Minimize Radio Frequency Interference", and "Terahertz Radiation". Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Ghabra, Rao, and Liu, in further view of Shi (WO201 1020389). Claim 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Ghabra, Rao, and Liu, in further view of Park (KR20100130676). Claim 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Ghabra, Rao, and Liu, in further view of Xiong (CN1 10593678).
With regard to the rejections, independent claims 1, 9 and 30 have been
amended to recite at least the following distinguishing technical features that are not disclosed by any of Ghabra, Rao, Liu, NPL documents, Shi, Park and Xiong:
A: the first signal receiver is configured to, when the charging device enters the coverage range of a wake-up signal sent by the electric vehicle to surrounding charging devices, receive the wake-up signal and send the wake-up signal to the response controller, wherein the wake-up signal is configured to activate the charging device to communicate with the electric vehicle and comprises an activation code for activating the response controller, the response controller is further configured to receive and verify the wake-up signal, and start and work to send the first control instruction to the encoder when the verification of the activation code in the wake-up signal is successful, or sleep when the verification is failed.
B: the charging device is configured to, during the charging of the electric vehicle, continuously send the first control instruction to a charging cover control device, and a charging cover control instruction keeps, as long as the verification of the identity information is successful, the charging cover in an open status by driving the charging cover motor via a motor driver, and
the charging device is configured to when the charging device no longer
receives the wake-up signal sent by the charging cover control device, consider that the charging is finished and indicate the response controller to be turned off
For distinguishing technical feature A:
Ghabra describes
The LF transceiver 48 may be coupled to an LF antenna 52 for detecting wakeup signals broadcast from the vehicle 12 (See para [0021] of Ghabra).
In at least one embodiment, the LF transceiver 36 in the vehicle 12 may be an LF transmitter configured to broadcast an LF signal. The LF signal may be a polling signal. The LF transceiver 48 in the charging cord handle 16 may be an LF receiver configured to receive the LF signalfrom the vehicle 12. The controller 44 in the charging cord handle 16 may measure the strength of the LF signal using, for example, Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI). When the strength of the LF signal exceeds a predetermined threshold, the RF transceiver 46 may transmit an RF signal to the vehicle 12 with a command to open the vehicle charge port door 24 (See para [0022] of Ghabra).
With respect to the wake-up signal disclosed in Ghabra, although Ghabra
involves receiving the wake-up signal which is broadcasted by the vehicle, it does not relate to the wake-up signal containing a verifiable activation code, nor does it involve that the response controller starts and works to send the first control instruction to the encoder when the verification of the activation code in the wake-up signal is successful, or sleeps when the verification is failed.
Further, with respect to the LF polling signal disclosed in Ghabra, Ghabra determines whether an RF signal needs to be sent to the vehicle 12 based on the strength of the polling signal, and further determines whether to start the charging cord handle 16. The strength of the polling signal characterizes the distance between the electric vehicle and the charging device. Therefore, the RF transceiver 46 of Ghabra determines whether to start the charging cord handle 16 based on the distance between the charging cord handle 16 and the signal sender (i.e., determines whether to start the charging cord handle 16 based on distance). As
long as the distance between the charging cord handle 16 and the signal sender is relatively short in Ghabra, the charging cord handle 16 will transmit an RF signal to the vehicle 12; even if the polling signal is an interference signal, the charging cord handle 16 will be activated incorrectly.
Thus, Ghabra also has the problem of false activation caused by interference
signals. In addition, Ghabra only involves the starting of the charging cord handle 16 (it can be inferred to further include sleeping), but does not relate to the activation of the charging cable handle 16 and turning off the charging cable handle 16.
However, the technical solution of the present application based on the above distinguishing technical feature A is as follows: The activation code can only be received when the charging device is relatively close to the electric vehicle. After receiving the activation code, the response controller is activated from the off state, and then the response controller verifies the activation code. If the verification is successful, the response controller starts up and enters a working state; if the activation code in the wake-up signal fails verification, the response controller enters a sleeping state (that is, determining whether to activate the response controller It can thus be seen that Ghabra does not involve the activation process of the
response controller; nor does it disclose that the wake-up signal is an activation code, nor does it disclose the technical solution constituted by the above distinguishing technical feature A (i.e., determining whether to activate the response controller based on distance; and determining whether the response controller starts up based on the accuracy of the activation code).
Rao, Liu, NPL documents, Shi, Park and Xiong do not involve that the wake-up signal is an activation code, and it is even more impossible for them to involve the above distinguishing technical feature A.
Accordingly, Ghabra, Rao, Liu, NPL documents, Shi, Park and Xiong do not teach or suggest the above distinguishing technical feature A.
For the distinguishing technical feature B:
Ghabra discloses
As provided at step 520, the vehicle 12 may receive, from the charging cord 14, a wireless signal including a charging cord identifier. The wireless signal, including the charging cord identifier, may include specific instructions instructing the vehicle 12 to open the charge port door 24. In certain embodiments, the response signal and wireless signal including the charging cord identifier may be the same signal or part of the same signal transmission. At step 530, the vehicle 12, via the controller 32, may verify the charging cord]4 is authorized for use with the vehicle 12 based on the charging cord identifier. At step 540, the vehicle 12 may open the chaise port door 24 in response to the charging cord identifier being associated with an authorized chaining cord (See para [0034] of Ghabra).
It can thus be seen that Ghabra only involves that when it is determined that
the charging cord identifier is associated with an authorized chaining cord, the vehicle 12 opens the charging port door 24; it does not involve the charging cord 14 continuously sending a wireless signal containing the charging cord identifier to keep the charging port door in an open state.
Further, based on paragraphs [0021] and [0022] of Ghabra as mentioned
above, it can be known that the wake-up signal of Ghabra is used to start the charging cord handle 16; or whether to start the charging cable handle 16 is determined based solely on distance. Based on this, it can be learned that when the wake-up signal is not received, the charging cord handle 16 enters a sleeping state; or whether to put the charging cord handle 16 into a sleeping state is determined based solely on distance (that is, the wake-up signal or distance in D1 is used to determine whether the charging cord handle 16 is started or put into a sleeping state).It does not involve how to turn off and activate the charging cord handle 16.
However, the technical solution of the present application based on the above distinguishing technical feature B is as follows: When the charging device is far away from the electric vehicle, it cannot receive the activation code; in this case, the charging device considers the charging to be completed and instructs the response controller to be turned off (i.e., determining whether to turn off the response controller based on distance).
Based on this, Ghabra does not involve the charging device continuously
sending the first control instruction to the charging cover control device, nor does it disclose the technical solution constituted by the above distinguishing technical feature B (i.e., determining whether to turn off the response controller based on distance).
Rao, Liu, NPL documents, Shi, Park and Xiong do not involve the wake-up signal, nor do they involve the charging device continuously sending the first control instruction to the charging cover control device, and it is even more impossible for them to involve the above distinguishing technical feature B.
Accordingly, Ghabra, Rao, Liu, NPL documents, Shi, Park and Xiong do not teach or suggest the above distinguishing technical feature B.
For at least the reasons, each of Ghabra, Rao, Liu, NPL documents, Shi, Park and Xiong do not disclose the above distinguishing technical features A and B. And, it follows that no combination of any of the references would arrive at that which is claimed. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C.§103.”
As to (B), Examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
Regarding distinguishing technical feature A, Applicant agrees that the charging station receives an LF polling signal sent by the vehicle and determines whether an RF response signal should be sent to the vehicle.
Ghabra only states that the controller, i.e. response controller, of the charging cord handle, part of the charging device, may optionally use the strength of the LF polling signal in order to determine whether a reply is sent, see Ghabra at [0005], [0022], [0025], [0033]. See further [0022], the RF signal sent by the charging device can be specific to a particular vehicle. This indicates that the LF polling signal was necessarily received and verified to be a valid polling signal by the controller. The charging device begins communication with the vehicle after it determines that a reply should be sent, meaning that the polling signal, as decoded and interpreted by the controller, is configured to activate the charging device to communicate with the vehicle. The polling signal necessarily comprises information when interpreted by the controller identifying the signal as a polling signal. This is also an activation code because the signal activates the charging device to communicate with the vehicle.
Applicant agrees that the disclosure from Ghabra can be inferred to include sleeping.
Examiner does not use Ghabra or prior art of previously of record to teach the final limitation specifically mentioned by Applicant, namely turning off the charging handle.
Regarding distinguishing technical feature B, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US 20200362616 A1 which relates to a smart window/door opening and closing device.
CN 207274787 U which relates to a vehicle charging port door that can be manually and automatically operated to open and close.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT whose telephone number is (571)272-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
11/19/25
Prosecution Insights