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 Interpretation
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the various types of roller blinds recited by claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11-19 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.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant recites “each of the at least two movably mounted charging connections” in lines 7-8 of the claim as amended. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation. Applicant further recites “assigned to one of the two changing connection covers” in lines 8-9. This recitation fails to appropriate refer back to the established limitation, making it unclear whether Applicant is now limiting “at least two movably mounted charging connection covers” to just two charging covers. The same deficiency is present in lines 10, 19, and 24-25.
It seems apparent that Applicant has made transcription errors in drafting the amended claims and that claim 11, at this portion, is meant to instead recite “each of the two charging connections is respectively assigned to one of the at least two charging connection covers.” Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claim will be examined as if it instead recited by limitation as best understood by Examiner (see above). Claims 12-19 depend from claim 11, fail to cure these deficiencies, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 11-16, 18, and 19 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0102336 (“Zhang”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0197515 (“Southey”).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses:
A charging connection device for an electrically propelled vehicle (title), the charging device comprising:
two charging connections arranged next to each other (FIG 2:11,12) and electrically coupled via a shared electrical path (inherent; as both charging ports are utilized to charge the same battery, at least some portion of the electrical connection to the battery must be shared, even if the “common electrical path” is entirely within the battery internal circuitry), wherein the two charging connections are charging sockets (“charging ports,” see para. [0023]) and include a fast charging port (11) and a slow charging port (12);
at least two movably mounted charging connection covers (FIGS 2 and 3, covers 21 and 22), wherein each the two charging connections is respectively assigned to one of the at least two movably mounted charging connection covers (as shown),
wherein the at least two movably mounted charging connection covers each cover a corresponding one of the two charging connections in at least one first state and at least partially uncover the corresponding one of the two charging connections in at least one second state (FIG 2, faster charger 11 is uncovered, slow charger 12 is covered; FIG 3, slow charger 12 is uncovered, fast charger 11 is covered);
wherein a barrier arrangement prevents one of the at least two movably mounted charging connection covers from being transitioned from the at least one first state into the at least one second state when the other charging connection cover is in the at least one second state, so that only one of the two charging connections is accessible for contacting at a time, while another one of the two charging connections is covered by the respective one of the at least two movably mounted charging connection covers such that the another of the two charging connections cannot be touched, wherein at least contact elements of the respectively inaccessible charging connection are covered such that the contact elements cannot be touched (inherent; see discussion below); and
wherein at least one of the at least two movably mounted charging connection covers or at least one cover element is a flap (FIG 2:21, 30), which is mounted such that the at least two movably mounted charging connection covers or the at least one cover element is rotatable or translationally movable (one of ordinary skill would reasonably infer that covers 21 of FIG 2 flip upward, as suggested by the unlabeled, horizontal element above charging element 300; moreover, it is evident from FIG 2 that flap 30 rotationally translates to open or close, as does a conventional fuel door on a vehicle).
Zhang, during a charging operation, first sends an open signal to both cover elements (para. [0026]) such that the vehicle operator may insert the appropriate charging plug. Once a charging plug is inserted, the system of Zhang detects which charging port is being used and closes the unused charging port (“control module 50 controls the charging port cover 20 corresponding to the charging port 10 into which the plug-in end is not inserted to be closed according to the charging port cover closing instructions”). In paragraph [0031], Zhang states that “[o]nly after the receiving module 40 receives the charging port cover opening signal again, the control module 50 can control both” covers to be opened. Thus, Zhang discloses “an inhibiting arrangement” that is configured to prevent the closed cover from being automatically opened unless the controller issues an opening signal. While Zhang contemplates the covers being openable manually, the “inhibiting arrangement” as presently recited does not exclude manual operation of the covers, but instead only requires some amount of inhibition. Inhibition of automated opening is sufficient to meet the present limitations, as best understood by Examiner. In addition to the above, Zhang also inherently discloses a sensing arrangement coupled to the inhibiting arrangement, the sensing arrangement configured to recognize the current charging mode by detecting which of the plural charging ports receives a corresponding charging plug.
Thus, the sole difference between Zhang and the instant claim is a matter of the specific ports cited in claim 11. While Zhang broadly discloses “a fast charging port” and “a slow charging port,” the instant claim recites the first connection as “a combined DC-AC charging connection” and the second connection as one of “a DC charging connection, an AC charging connection, or a further DC-AC charging connection.” However, those of ordinary skill would recognize and appreciate that the charging ports depicted by Zhang include a GB/T connector (FIG 4:11) and an Mennekes connector (FIG 4:12). Thus, Zhang may be interpreted as disclosing a first charging connection that is an AC charging connection and a second charging connection that is a DC charging connection. Thus, Zhang actually differs from the instant claims in that the first connector of the instant claim is a combined charging standard.
It is well-known by those of ordinary skill in the art that an AC charging port may be modified to include a DC charging port to create a “combined charging system” (“CCS”). There are multiple types of CCS, including CCS1, which incorporates a J1772 connector (common in North America) with a DC charging port. Such a modification would have obvious benefits, including the ability to utilize fast charging stations in North America where the GB/T charging standard is less prevalent.
Southey discloses a CCS standard connector, which appears to be a CCS1 connector (see FIG 3), wherein a J1772 standard connector has been modified (compare FIG 2 to FIG 3) to include a DC charging port socket (as shown by FIG 3). Southey does not provide a motivation for adding the DC charging socket to the J1772 standard socket, simply acknowledging that it is already known.
Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to replace Zhang’s Mennekes standard with the CCS1 port of Southey for the purposes of enabling the operator of the vehicle in Zhang to make use of DC fast charging stations in North America where the GB/T standard is not available.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zhang and Southey (“the first combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 11 and further discloses the barrier arrangement comprising at least one locking element configured to lock a corresponding one of the at least two movably mounted charging connection covers in the at least one first position (see the discussion of Zhang’s “barrier arrangement” in the rejection of claim 11, above), or at least one blockade arrangement configured to block a drive configured to drive at least one of the at least two movably mounted charging connection covers (paras. [0028-29]).
Regarding claim 13, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 11 and further discloses at least one sensor arrangement coupled with the barrier arrangement and configured to monitor a state of the at least two movably mounted charging connection covers (see the discussion pertaining to the barrier arrangement in the rejection of claim 11, above, as well as paras. [0026-27]).
Regarding claim 14, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 11 and further discloses a coupling arrangement configured to couple one of the at least two movably mounted charging connection covers of a first one of the two charging connections with another one of the at least two movably mounted charging connection covers of a second one of the two charging connections (see the discussion pertaining to the barrier arrangement in the rejection of claim 11, above; as discussed more thoroughly above, the system of Zhang first opens both covers, then closes the cover of the charging port which is not in use; thus, Zhang reasonably discloses the covers being “coupled”).
Regarding claim 15, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 11 and further discloses the two charging connections being arranged in a shared charging well (see FIG 2, where both charging ports are in the same recess 31) or in two separate charging wells that are arranged next to each other (see FIG 2, where the charging ports have a physical separation between them and, thus, must also have separate “charging wells” for each connection).
Regarding claim 16, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 15 and further discloses the at least one cover element (30) covering a corresponding one of the two separate charging wells in the at least one first state (when door 30 is closed, both charging wells are covered and thus “a corresponding one of the two separate charging wells” is covered), and at least partially uncovers another corresponding one of the two separate charging wells in the at least one second state (when door 30 is open, both charging wells are covered and thus “another corresponding one of the two separate charging wells” is uncovered).
Regarding claim 18, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 11 but Zhang does not disclose at least one of the two movably mounted charging connection covers or the at least one cover element comprising several cover elements configured to be pushed together or pushed apart.
Southey further discloses a cover element (FIGS, two part closure 14) comprising several cover elements (FIGS 2-7; inner part 16, outer part 18; e.g.¸ para. [0034]) configured to be pushed together (when closing, part 18 is pushed onto part 16) or pushed apart (not necessary due to the wording of the claim, but part 18 may also be construed as “pushed apart” from part 16 when opening closure 14). The two-part closure of Southey enables a user to uncover only that portion of a combined AC/DC connector which is necessary for charging, while keeping the remaining portion covered to prevent dust and other environmental contaminants from entering the charging port.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Zhang such that the cover assigned to the CCS charging port is provided as a two part cover, wherein the two parts are configured to be pushed together or pushed apart for the purposes of enabling access to only the portion of the CCS charging port which is necessary for charging.
Regarding claim 19, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 11 and further discloses the two charging connections are connected in parallel in the shared electrical path (inherent; see the discussion of the shared electrical path in the rejection of claim 11, above; as the separate connections deliver power to the same battery, at least some portion of the shared path must place the connections in parallel with respect to each other).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first combination as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0086217 (“Scherdin”).
Regarding claim 17, the first combination discloses the limitations of claim 11, as detailed above, but does not disclose at least one of the two movably mounted charging connection covers or the at least one cover element being a foldable, rollable, or bendable roller blind.
Scherdin discloses an electric vehicle charging system (title, FIGS 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b) wherein a movable charging port cover is provided as a rollable roller blind (6). While the reference does not provide a motivation for utilizing such a rolled blind, Scherdin does acknowledge that such coverings are “well-known.” As Scherdin recognizes roll-front covers as being “well-known” and furthermore utilizes such as a cover for a charging port in an electric vehicle, Examiner finds that the prior art recognizes the suitability of roller blinds as a substitutable equivalent to other covering means. Additionally, those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that flap-type coverings, such as those disclosed by Zhang, may be damaged if force is applied in a direction perpendicular to the rotation direction; a roller-type covering, such as Scherdin’s obviates such a concern because the covering does not extend outwardly, but instead slides into a reel secured within the body of the vehicle.
Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to further modify Zhang, replacing the flap-type connection coverings of Zhang with roller-type coverings as disclosed by Scherdin, because the prior art recognizes roller-type coverings being a suitable substitute for the flap-type coverings and provision of the roller-type coverings obviates structural weaknesses of the flap-type coverings as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those documents cited, but not discussed above, generally pertain to electric vehicle charging ports, systems, and coverings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights