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 § 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 3-5 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 3 recites “a wheel that supports inside of the housing” which does not clearly indicate the placement of the wheel and leaves the limitations of the claim unclear. The specification appears to disclose that the wheel(s) are outside the housing in order to allow the entire unit to be rolled to a new location.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara et al. JP 2017135816.
With regards to claim 1 Hara discloses, a charging device capable of rapidly charging an external storage battery [fig 1], comprising: a storage battery [storage battery 110];
a first converter that converts power from a commercial power source and charges the storage battery [¶20 input-side power converter]; and
a second converter that converts power from the storage battery and discharges the converted power to the external storage battery to rapidly charge the external storage battery [¶21 output-side power converter].
With regards to claim 2 Hara discloses, the charging device according to claim 1, wherein the charging device discharges power five or more times greater than the power input from the commercial power source, to the external storage battery [¶77 power from grid to station is 3kW, and power from station to electric vehicle is 50kW].
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. JP 2017135816 in view of Ito et al. US 20170282733.
With regards to claim 3 Hara fails to disclose, the charging device according to claim 1, further comprising: a housing in which the storage battery is stored; and a wheel that supports inside of the housing.
However, Ito discloses, a housing in which the storage battery is stored [fig 1 body frame 20]; and a wheel that supports inside of the housing [wheels 21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the charging systems of Hara with Ito to include a housing with wheels in order to allow easier transport of the charger.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. JP 2017135816 in view of Akihito JP 2013192310 (hereinafter Aki).
With regards to claim 4 Hara discloses, the charging device according to claim 1, wherein the charging device is electrically connectable to another charging device [fig 1 discloses plural chargers electrically connectable].
Hara fails to disclose, the charging device has a discharging destination selection unit for switching a discharging destination of the power from the storage battery between the external storage battery and the other charging device.
However, Aki discloses, wherein the charging device is electrically connectable to another charging device [figs 1, 2, 3, and 3b], and
the charging device has a discharging destination selection unit for switching a discharging destination of the power from the storage battery between the external storage battery and the other charging device [figs 2, 3, and 3b disclose switches a to c or d to route power from one charging device to another charging device or to a vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the charging systems of Hara with Aki to connect plural chargers together and allow power switching capabilities in order to allow better and easier scalability.
With regards to claim 5 the combination discloses, the charging device according to claim 4, further comprising a supply destination selection unit for switching a supply destination of the power from the other charging device between the storage battery of the own device and the external storage battery [Aki figs 1-3b switch b which allow the power connections from other chargers to receive power from another charger].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. JP 2017135816 in view of Budde US 20160372971.
With regards to claim 6 Hara discloses, the charging device according to claim 1, wherein the charging device is electrically connectable to another charging device [fig 1 discloses plural chargers electrically connectable].
Hara fails to disclose, the charging device has a power source sharing unit for switching a charging destination of the power from the commercial power source between the storage battery of the own device and the storage battery of the other charging device.
However, Budde discloses, the charging device has a power source sharing unit for switching a charging destination of the power from the commercial power source between the storage battery of the own device and the storage battery of the other charging device [fig 1 bypass switch 110 which discloses that the commercial power at input 102 can bypass the battery 114 via the bypass switch 110 and exit via output 104 to a load].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the power systems of Hara with Budde to include a power bypass in order to save energy/reduce power losses and to potentially allow a charger device to rest in order to protect its internal components.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. JP 2017135816 in view of Yamada US 20190025382.
With regards to claim 7 Hara discloses, the charging device according to claim 1, further comprising: a controller that monitors charging/discharging information including a remaining power amount of the storage battery [fig 1 amount detection unit 121 and ¶11 and ¶26].
Hara fails to disclose, discharging frequency and a communication instrument that transmits the charging information to an external server device through a communication line.
However, Yamada discloses, discharging frequency [abstract mentions the discharge frequency] and a communication instrument that transmits the charging information to an external server device through a communication line [¶50 and fig 1 wireless communication section 24 which interacts with the data server 13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery systems of Hara with Yamada to include charging control and battery information transfer in order to improve power efficiency across the devices and allow external monitoring for issues.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. JP 2017135816 in view of Yamada US 20190025382 further in view of Endo JP 2019221014.
With regards to claim 8 the combination discloses, a system comprising: the charging device according to claim 7; and a server device connected to a plurality of the charging devices through a communication line [Yamada ¶50 and fig 1].
The combination fails to disclose, wherein upon receipt of a request for charging the external storage battery from a user, the server device generates information of a guide to the charging device to be provided to the user, based on the charging/discharging information received from the plurality of charging devices.
However, Endo discloses, wherein upon receipt of a request for charging the external storage battery from a user, the server device generates information of a guide to the charging device to be provided to the user, based on the charging/discharging information received from the plurality of charging devices [fig 3 and ¶44 covers S15 where the user requests charging, ¶47 covers S17 where the charger is selected as the destination/waypoint and ¶29 mentions the car navigation function].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the charging system of Hara in view of Yamada with Endo to include a charger selection and map in order to improve the user experience.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. JP 2017135816 in view of Yamada US 20190025382 further in view of Lee US 20210162874.
With regards to claim 9 the combination discloses, a system comprising: the charging device according to claim 7; and a server device connected to a plurality of the charging devices through a communication line [Yamada ¶50 and fig 1].
The combination fails to disclose, wherein the server device generates information on an appropriate location of the charging device, based on the charging/discharging information received from the plurality of charging devices.
However, Lee discloses, wherein the server device generates information on an appropriate location of the charging device, based on the charging/discharging information received from the plurality of charging devices [¶32 and fig 2a disclose a transfer monitoring unit 160 which uses vehicle charging/discharging information in order to provide a location for the charging unit].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the battery system of Hara in view of Yamada and Endo with Lee to include charger location determination in order to provide better vehicle charging support for customers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights