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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al, US Pub. 20220176840.
Regarding claims1 and 15, Harris et al disclose an electric vehicle charging system and method comprising: an EV charging system 1300 particularly suited for a fleet charging facility, including EV buses (par. 0057); an overhead busway 1302 receiving AC power from the secondary winding of three-phase utility transformer 1304 and distributing that power to EVSEPs 102 positioned along the busway; Harris et al expressly identifies the busway as, for example, a Starline 1200 A, four-pole busway (figs. 13, par. 0057-0059); matching receptacles configured at various locations in the overhead busway 1302; Harris et al state that EVSEPs 102 are configured as busplugs that “plug into” the matching receptacles positioned along overhead busway 1302; the EVSEP 102 performs EV charging-current control and circuit protection and that the Fig. 13 system is particularly suited for a fleet charging facility, including municipal EV buses; Harris et al further teach AC and DC charging embodiments. For DC charging, the EVSEP itself is modified to contain bridge rectifier 1202 and DC/DC converter 1204, the latter stepping the converted voltage to a level suitable for charging ( Figs. 12–13); thus Harris et al teach or at minimum renders obvious an EV charger incorporated into the EVSEP/busplug; a first EV connector coupled to the first EV charger via a first EV cord; attaching corresponding charging cables 1306 to the busplugs along busway 1302; Harris et al's earlier embodiments further describe charging cables 112 having charging handles 114 for connection to PEVs.
Although Harris et al do not expressly call the EVSEP contained in the busplug an “EV charger,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the charging electronics into Harris et al's EVSEP/busplug because Harris et al expressly teaches placing charging-control equipment in the EVSEP, including AC/DC conversion and DC/DC conversion circuitry for DC charging. Such integration would eliminate unnecessary separate charging equipment and provide a more compact plug-in charging station. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, in addition to the rejection of claim 1, Harri et al disclose an overhead busway 1302 (fig. 13). Locating such overhead busway at or near the ceiling of the fleet charging facility would have been an obvious implementation of the prior art teachings in order to keep the power distribution equipment above vehicle traffic. Therefore, it would have been obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Harris et al disclose expanding the charging facility with additional busplugs and charging cables, but fail to require the additional busplug to reside on a separate second busway. However, extending a conventional busway with another busway section to provide additional receptables would have been an obvious way to expand Harris et al’s busway system to provide additional positions. Therefore, it would have been obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 18-19, since Harris et al busplug is removable, removing it and installing it in another receptacle, or replace it with another compatible busplug would have been an obvious of Harris et al plug-in architecture in order to maintain, reconfigure, or to extend the fleet charging system. Therefore, it would have been obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the rejection of claim 1, Harris et al circuit protection with EVSEO 102, including solid state switching, an air gap disconnect and GFCI functionality, including LED indicators for status, ON, standby, OFF, charging, charging complete, and fault status. Therefore, it would have been obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al in view of Fournier et al, US Pub. 2017/0129355.
Harris et al fail to disclose a cable management system coupled to the first EV cord and the first EV connector, the cable management system comprising a spring loaded mechanism structured to place the first EV cord and the first EV connector in a position accessible to a user for charging and away from the first EV and drive path of the first EV, allow the first EV cord to extend so as to enable the user to charge the first EV, and return the first EV cord and the first EV connector to the position upon releasing of the first EV connector by the user.
Fournier et al disclose an electric vehicle charging system comprising: an EV charging connector at its free end and is movable between retracted position and extended position; pulling the charging cable for connecting to the vehicle; the cable is retracted back to its position after usage (Figs. 4a-4e; col. 0024+).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing data of the invention to provide the charging cable of Harris et al with the known retractable cable management mechanism of Fournier et al in order to allow pulling of the EV charging cable and automatically returning the cable to its position after use, thereby keeping the cable off the floor and out of vehicle and/or user path when not in use. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al in view of Dozier, US Pub. 2013/0149888.
Harris et al fail to disclose wherein the first bus-plug further comprises: a locking mechanism structured to fixedly attach the first bus-plug to the first busway.
Dozier dis close an electrical busway plug-in unit with improved restraint mechanism comprising: an electrical buss plug-in unit, attached to the busway, wherein the mechanical connectors move into and out of latching engagement with the busway.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Harris et al busplug with the known busplug restraint mechanism of Dozier to prevent unintended separation of the charging plug from the busway and to a more secure attachment. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Claim(s) 6, 12-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al in view of Brown et al, US Patent No. 9,073439. The teachings of Harris et al have been discussed above.
Regarding claims 6, 12-13, and 20 Harris et al fail to disclose a plate and fixing components, wherein the plate is affixed to the EV charger and an inner surface and/or a back of the busplug, including an adapter fixedly attached to the EV charger.
Brown et al disclose an electric vehicle supply equipment comprising a plate 224 having mounting holes 226 and screws or other fasteners for attaching the EVSE equipment, including mounting bracket, screws, clips, and other fasteners ( Fig. 33; par. 98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to position the known pate of Brown et al to the charging equipment and the interior wall of Harris et al busplug for an obvious mechanical packaging choice. Such modification would secure the electrical device inside the enclosure. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the rejection of claim 12, Harris et al circuit protection with EVSEO 102, including solid state switching, an air gap disconnect and GFCI functionality, including LED indicators for status, ON, standby, OFF, charging, charging complete, and fault status. Therefore, Harris et al in view of Brown et al render the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al in view of Acosta-Cazaubon et al, US Pub. 2013/0043306. The teachings of Harris et al have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 10, wherein the first EV connector includes a user verification mechanism.
Acosta et al disclose systems and methods for accessing charging capabilities of electric charging stations comprising: an identifying system with a unique identifier of a user mobile device is register with an EV charging station operator, the system determines whether the consumer associated with the mobile device identifier is permitted to access the charging capabilities of the charging station ( figs. 1-2; par. 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the user verification technique into the EV charging system of Harris et al to restrict use of the charging capabilities of the charging station by authorized users. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Harris et al fail to disclose wherein the user verification mechanism is a QR code verifier.
Acosta et al disclose a readable code associated with an EV station, wherein the readable code is a QR-code, including scanning the QR-code for identifying the user (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the user verification technique using a QR-code for providing identification information, into the EV charging system of Harris et al to restrict use of the charging capabilities of the charging station by authorized users by simply scanning the QR-code to identify each user. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brown et al, US Pub. 2011/0172839, disclose and electric supply equipment with timer. Prosser et al, US Pub. 20120013298, disclose a single electric vehicle charger for electrically connecting to multiple electric vehicles simultaneously while charging the multiple electric vehicle sequentially.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Pham Thomas can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights