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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALLON, IV et al. (US 2013/0257373 A1, hereinafter MALLON) in view of CHO (KR102591932B1, hereinafter CHO. US 2026/0241812 A1, is considered a translation of the foreign patent).
Regarding claims 1 and 10 (claim 1 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MALLON discloses a vehicle charging system for an electrified vehicle, the vehicle charging system comprising:
a charging base that houses electrical charging components (See Fig.1A-1B, Item#102, disclose a charging base. Figs.4C-4D and Par.48, disclose a grid connection 180 which performs transformation to achieve suitable voltage and current for the electric vehicle);
a cable arm movably coupled to the charging base (See Fig.1A, Item#110);
a charging cable configured to communicate current from the electrical charging components to the electrified vehicle (See Fig.1A, Item#120);
a controller that is configured to determine whether a decoupling condition has been satisfied and communicate a decoupling signal in response thereto (See Par.56, discloses an ejection mechanism would also be integrated into the coupling where required so it first disengages from the connection point before the upward bias is activated to return the pole to the vertical position. Par.56: further discloses the charging station detects completion of a charging operation resulting from the transfer with the electric vehicle, disengages, in response to the detecting completion, the charge coupling from the receptacle by disconnecting the charge coupling, such as via a solenoid based latch or protrusion. The control signal clearly indicates the presence of a controller which detects charge completion and disconnects the charge coupling from the vehicle); and
a vehicle charge connector extending from the charging cable and configured to be electrically coupled to a vehicle charging port of the electrified vehicle during a charging event (See Figs.1A and 3B, Item#126), the vehicle charge connector comprising:
a charger body having a male extension portion extending therefrom (See Fig.3B, and Par.64 disclose a male connector which fits in a vehicle charging receptacle 30).
However, MALLON does not disclose the vehicle charge connector comprising an actuator movably disposed on the charger body, the actuator configured to move from a retracted position to a deployed position upon receipt of the decoupling signal, wherein movement of the actuator to the deployed position causes a forcing surface on the actuator to push against a surface on the electrified vehicle and urge the vehicle charge connector away from the vehicle charging port.
CHO discloses a vehicle charging connector comprising:
an actuator movably disposed on the charger body, the actuator configured to move from a retracted position to a deployed position upon receipt of the decoupling signal, wherein movement of the actuator to the deployed position causes a forcing surface on the actuator to push against a surface on the electrified vehicle and urge the vehicle charge connector away from the vehicle charging port (See Fig.6(a)-6(b) and Pars.73-74, disclose the release mechanism comprising movable piston shaped pins 412 which expand from the charging connector to push the charging inlet to separate from the vehicle. Par.85: discloses this is done when charging completion or a charging fault such as a fire is detected).
MALLON and CHO are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MALLON with the teachings of CHO by adding the disclosed connector movable actuator for the benefit of automatically disconnecting the connector from the vehicle in the case of charge completion or a charging fault.
Regarding claims 2 and 11 (claim 2 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MALLON and CHO disclose the vehicle charging system of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising:
a motor disposed on the charging base and mechanically coupled to the cable arm, the motor configured to move the cable arm from an outward charging position to a retracted position (See MALLON, Par.55, discloses a completion signal disengages the brake of the arm 110 and allows the upward bias to return the elongated arm to the rest position. Par.40, discloses the cantilever support 150 may include a motor driven worm gear such as a linear actuator, in which that the motor is responsive to user commands for pivoting the elongated arm 110).
Regarding claims 3 and 12 (Claim 3 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MALLON and CHO disclose the vehicle charging system of claim 2 as discussed above, wherein the controller communicates a signal to the motor to move the cable arm to the retracted position subsequent to communicating the decoupling signal (See MALLON, Par.55: The completion signal disengages the brake and allows the upward bias to return the elongated arm to the rest position, thus providing an automatic retraction upon charge completion. Par.58, further discloses after charging is completed, the charging base automatically activates solenoid or protrusion to disconnect the charging connector and raises the arm to the undeployed rest position).
Regarding claims 4 and 13 (claim 4 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MALLON and CHO disclose the vehicle charging system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the charging base further comprises a magnet, wherein the magnet is configured to magnetically couple the vehicle charge connector thereat (See MALLON, Par.59, discloses following return to the undeployed position, the charging station may secure the charge coupling to a fixed position by remote engagement, such as via a magnetic attraction or a moving hook, to secure the charge connector from free hanging or swinging where it might be a hazard to passersby).
Regarding claims 5 and 14 (claim 5 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MALLON and CHO disclose the vehicle charging system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the controller determines that a decoupling condition has been satisfied based on a vehicle charge is complete (See MALLON, Par.58, discloses the charging station detects completion of a charging operation resulting from the transfer with the electric vehicle, disengages, in response to the detecting completion, the charge coupling from the receptacle by disconnecting the charge coupling, such as via a solenoid based latch or protrusion, and returns the elongated arm to an undeployed rest position at an upper end of the pivot range).
Regarding claims 6 and 15 (claim 6 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MALLON and CHO disclose the vehicle charging system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the controller determines that a decoupling condition has been satisfied based on an unsafe condition being detected (See CHO, Par.85, discloses decoupling the charging connector when a fire breaks out during charging. Par.10, discloses the benefit as “for automatically removing the plug when a fire breaks out during electric-vehicle charging, thereby enabling firefighting work for an electric vehicle to be rapidly performed”).
Regarding claims 8 and 17 (claim 8 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MALLON and CHO disclose the vehicle charging system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the charger body includes a track assembly, wherein the actuator translates along the track assembly from the retracted position to the deployed position (See CHO, Fig.6(a)-6(b) and Par.83 disclose at least one push pin 412 which moves along an interior track to protrude outside the charging connector body and come in contact with the charging inlet).
Regarding claim 9, MALLON and CHO disclose the vehicle charging system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the vehicle charging port further defines a female receiving portion that receives the male extension portion of the charger body during the charging event (See MALLON, Fig.1, Item#30 and Par.64, disclose a vehicle charging receptacle).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALLON, in view of CHO and in further view of LINSMEIER et al. (US 2026/0138475 A1, hereinafter LINSMEIER).
Regarding claims 7 and 16 (claim 7 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MALLON and CHO disclose the vehicle charging system of claim 1 as discussed above, However, MALLON and CHO do not disclose wherein the controller determines that a decoupling condition has been satisfied based on an indication that the electrified vehicle has shifted out of park.
LINSMEIER discloses a vehicle charging system comprising a controller which determines that a decoupling condition has been satisfied based on an indication that the electrified vehicle has shifted out of park (See Pars.5 and 96, disclose the control system would disconnect the charging port when the vehicle is put into drive).
MALLON, CHO and LINSMEIER are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MALLON and CHO with the teachings of LINSMEIER by decoupling the vehicle charging connector when the electrified vehicle has shifted out of park for the benefit of protecting the charging system by preventing the user from driving off with the charging cable still connected to the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights