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 . The instant application with Application Number 18/638, 030 filed on 04/17/2024 is presented for examination. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statment
The Information Disclosure Statement dated 04/17/2024 is acknowledged and the cited references have been considered in this examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hau et al.(US 2023/0105828) in view of Singh et al. (US 2022/0085626)(hereinafter, Singh).
With respect to claims 1, 3 and 5, Hau et al. (hereinafter, Hau) discloses a control device/a control method that determines whether or not a charging standard of a charger installed in a charging station (Fig. 2, controller 117 and charging station controller 330) is compatible with a charging standard of a vehicle (Para. # 0047: The charging station 130 shown in FIG. 1 has a charger 133 and charger plug 135. The charger 133 provides electricity supply. The charger 133 may be an AC charger or DC charger), the control device comprising a control unit that acquires the charging of the charger when it is detected that the vehicle stops within a predetermined area (Para. # 0040: the onboard controller 117 may request the charger coordination system 140 to move the charger plug 135 based on the pose information of the EV 110) including the charging station (Fig. 1, charging stations 130),
PNG
media_image1.png
487
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
that determines compatibility between the charging standard of the vehicle and the charging standard of the charger (para. # 0039: The onboard controller 117 may further determine whether the charge port 115 and the charger plug 135 are aligned, e.g., whether a linear movement of the charge port 115 relative to the charger plug 135 can plug the EV 110 into the charging station 130), and that, when it is determined that there is compatibility, displays a location of a charge port of the vehicle on a display screen of the vehicle (Para. # 0021: identifying a charger in the local area based on the first pose information of the vehicle; sending location information of the charger to the vehicle; after sending the location information, receiving second pose information of the vehicle, the second pose information describing a pose of the vehicle with respect to a charger plug on the charger; and instructing the charger to charge the vehicle).
Hau, however, does not expressly disclose a charging standard of the charger.
Singh discloses, on the other hand, charging standard of the charger (see Fig. 2, different charge standards and rates).
PNG
media_image2.png
433
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
HAU and Singh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely system and method for charging electric vehicles and charging of acceptor nodes by the charging system
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the charge control of Hau in view of Singh to check the requirement of charging standard of the charger so that the charging request of a specific vehicle, energy level of the acceptor node, a charging capacity of the energy storage device, a desired charging rate of the energy storage device, and a turn-round time of achieving the desired energy level is well adjusted to the level to meet all the standards or requirements of the vehicle (Para. # 0020: the charging request may be further indicative of a desired energy level of the acceptor node, a charging capacity of the energy storage device, a desired charging rate of the energy storage device, a maximum charging rate of the energy storage device, and a turn-around time for achieving the desired energy level).
With respect to claim 2, the combined references of Hau and Singh disclose the control device/the control method as described above, further Singh discloses wherein the charger supports anyone charging standard among an ordinary-charging standard and one or more fast-charging standards, and the vehicle includes at least one charge port that supports at least one charging standard among the ordinary-charging standard and the one or more fast-charging standards (Para. # 0040: the plurality of charging stations 112a and 112b may be DC fast charging stations, level 1 charging stations, level 2 charging stations, or may provide an output from a power generation source generating alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC)).
With respect to claim 4, the combined references of Hau and Singh disclose the control device/the control method as described above, wherein Singh discloses, further comprising: an input unit that receives an input from a driver of the vehicle via voice; and an output unit that responds to the driver via voice, wherein the input unit receives from the driver, via voice ( Para. # 121: the user interface may be configured to receive input, regarding the user preferences, from the user based on a manual entry via a touchscreen or a keyboard, a touch and/or scroll input, a voice input)an inquiry about whether or not the charging standard of the charger is compatible with the charging standard of the vehicle, and the output unit provides the driver, via voice, with guidance on a determination result about the compatibility, a method for using a predetermined conversion adapter, and the location of the charge port of the vehicle (Para. # 0039: Each driver device 109a and 109b may be further configured to execute the service application that is hosted by the application server 116. The plurality of driver devices 109a and 109b may be configured to present a user interface of the executed service application, which enables the corresponding plurality of drivers may accept or reject the charging requests of the plurality of acceptor nodes 102-106).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YALKEW FANTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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 A 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.
/YALKEW FANTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights