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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 8 and 9 are claiming an external device is part of the internal power supply. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “Low”, “slow” and “fast” in claims 1, 11 and 16 are a relative term. The term “Low”, “slow” and “fast” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term "Low DC-DC Converter" is broad and would be interpreted as such as a DC/DC converter which arguably would be based on the type of the loads being powered or subjective as well based on a desired voltage range withing a greater range.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nguyen (US 2025/0079843 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nguyen teaches a power supply device to be mounted on an eco-friendly vehicle, the power supply device comprising:
a low DC-DC converter (see Nguyen fig 1, 4-6 element 36 and para 0034);
an inlet comprising a plurality of terminals for fast charging and slow charging, wherein, among the plurality of terminals, a terminal connected to the low DC-DC converter is an alternating current (AC) terminal for slow charging (see Nguyen para 0036);
a first switch disposed between the AC input terminal of the plurality of terminals and the low DC-DC converter (see Nguyen fig 4-6 switches S11-S14 and para 0040);
a controller configured to turn on the first switch to supply, through the AC input terminal, a control voltage for operating an external device, the control voltage configured to be supplied from the low DC-DC converter to the external device in a state in which a connector of the external device is connected to the inlet (see Nguyen fig 1 controller 40, and para 0040, “The controller 40 may be configured for controlling AC/DC converter 34, the DC/DC converter 36, and the DC/DC converter 36 according to the plurality of powering modes.”, The energy from the batteries are converted by the DC/DC converter then converted again by the AC/DC converter to supply power to an external device through the AC terminals).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US 2025/0079843 A1) and in view of Choi (US 2020/0331355 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the Nguyen teaches the power supply device of claim 1, but is silent on the inlet further comprises a fastening confirmation terminal; and the controller is configured to turn on the first switch in response to a confirmation that the inlet and the connector of the external device are connected through the fastening confirmation terminal.
However, Choi teaches an electric vehicle charging system wherein the inlet further comprises a fastening confirmation terminal (see Choi fig 1 PD pin 5 and para 38); and the controller is configured to turn on the first switch switching module in response to a confirmation that the inlet and the connector of the external device are connected through the fastening confirmation terminal (see Choi para 40-41).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nguyen to include the charging communication standard taught by Choi to allow the system to use the SAE J1772 combo connector.
Regarding Claim 16, Choi teaches an eco-friendly vehicle comprising:
a power supply device comprising (see Choi fig 1 and para 28-30):
an inlet comprising a plurality of terminals for fast charging and slow charging, wherein, among the plurality of terminals, a terminal connected to the low DC-DC converter is an alternating current (AC) input terminal for slow charging (see Choi fig 1 element 15, para 36-41).
But Choi is silent on teaching a low DC-DC converter; a first switch disposed between the AC input of the plurality of terminals and the low DC-DC converter; and a controller configured to turn on the first switch switching module to supply a control voltage from the low DC-DC converter to an external device in a state in which a connector of the external device is connected to the inlet.
However, Nguyen teaches an electric vehicle charging system which comprises:
a low DC-DC converter (see Nguyen fig 1, 4-6 element 36 and para 0034);
a first switch disposed between the AC input terminal of the plurality of terminals and the low DC-DC converter (see Nguyen fig 4-6 switches S11-S14 and para 0040);
a controller configured to turn on the first switch to supply, through the AC input terminal, a control voltage for operating an external device, the control voltage configured to be supplied from the low DC-DC converter to the external device in a state in which a connector of the external device is connected to the inlet (see Nguyen fig 1 controller 40, and para 0040, “The controller 40 may be configured for controlling AC/DC converter 34, the DC/DC converter 36, and the DC/DC converter 36 according to the plurality of powering modes.”, The energy from the batteries are converted by the DC/DC converter then converted again by the AC/DC converter to supply power to an external device through the AC terminals).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Choi to include the charging system from Nguyen to teach an electric vehicle charging system that could use the energy stored on an electric vehicle to power external loads.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Choi and Nguyen teaches the eco-friendly vehicle of claim 16, wherein: the inlet further comprises a fastening confirmation terminal (see Choi fig 1 PD pin 5 and para 38); and the controller is configured to turn on the first switch switching module in response to a confirmation that the inlet and the connector of the external device are connected through the fastening confirmation terminal (see Choi para 40-41).
Claim(s) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2020/0331355 A1) in view of Nguyen (US 2025/0079843 A1), and further in view of Masuda (US 2018/0065495 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Choi and Nguyen teaches the power supply device of claim 2, wherein: the inlet further comprises a communication terminal (see Choi fig 1 CP pin 4 and para 36, 38), but Choi and Jang are silent on teaching the controller is configured to lock the inlet and the connector of the external device in response to a confirmation that communication with the external device is normal through the communication terminal.
However, Masuda teaches an electric vehicle charging system which the controller is configured to lock the inlet and the connector of the external device in response to a confirmation that communication with the external device is normal through the communication terminal (see Masuda para 42 and 75-79).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Choi and Nguyen to include the locking mechanism from Masuda to prevent the charging plug from being unplugged while the vehicle’s batteries are charging, thus reducing the damage to the connectors and increasing safety.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Choi and Nguyen teaches the power supply device of claim 17, wherein: the inlet further comprises a communication terminal (see Choi fig 1 CP pin 4 and para 36, 38), but Choi and Nguyen are silent on teaching the controller is configured to lock the inlet and the connector of the external device in response to a confirmation that communication with the external device is normal through the communication terminal.
However, Masuda teaches an electric vehicle charging system which the controller is configured to lock the inlet and the connector of the external device in response to a confirmation that communication with the external device is normal through the communication terminal (see Masuda para 42 and 75-79).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Choi and Nguyen to include the locking mechanism from Masuda to prevent the charging plug from being unplugged while the vehicle’s batteries are charging, thus reducing the damage to the connectors and increasing safety.
Claim(s) 4, 7 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2020/0331355 A1) in view of Nguyen (US 2025/0079843 A1), and Masuda (US 2018/0065495 A1) and further in view of Mackenzie (US 2025/0091456 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Choi, Nguyen and Masuda teaches the power supply device of claim 3, but Choi, Nguyen and Masuda fails to teach the power supply further comprising: a high voltage battery; and a second switch disposed between the high voltage supply module high voltage battery and a direct current (DC) input terminal for fast charging among the plurality of terminals wherein the controller is configured to turn on the second switch to supply a high voltage from the voltage battery to the external device in response to a request for the high voltage received through the communication terminal.
However, Mackenzie teaches an electric vehicle charging system which the power supply further comprises: a high voltage battery (see Mackenzie fig 1 element 124, 7A-B element 124 and para 17, ); and a second switch disposed between the high voltage supply module high voltage battery and a direct current (DC) input terminal for fast charging among the plurality of terminals (see Mackenzie fig 1, 7A-B element 152 and para 23, 37-39), wherein the controller is configured to turn on the second switch to supply a high voltage from the voltage battery to the external device in response to a request for the high voltage received through the communication terminal (see Mackenzie para 21, 30 “In the DC charging mode, the AC contactor 154 is open and the DC contactor 152 is closed such that the DC current received by the DC/AC connector 404 is directly supplied to the traction battery 124”, “Operations of the AC contactors 154 and DC contactors 152 may be controlled by the system controller and/or BECM 125.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Choi, Nguyen and Masuda to include the high voltage DC switch from Mackenzie to teach using the DC pins on the charging cable and the use of the DC contactors to connect and disconnect the high voltage from the charging port, thus reducing the chances of accidental electrocution.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Choi, Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda teaches the power supply device of claim 4, but Choi, Nguyen and Masuda are silent on teaching the low DC- DC converter is configured to receive a high voltage from the high voltage battery and convert the received high voltage into 12 V or 24 V voltage.
However, Mackenzie teaches a DC to DC converter to supply power to a low voltage 12 volt auxiliary battery (see Mackenzie para 18).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Choi, Nguyen and Masuda to include the 12 volt auxiliary battery from Mackenzie to supply lower voltage to the electronic inside the vehicle. 12 volt components are cheaper and safer to operate than designing all of the electronics off of the more than 400 volt batteries of electric vehicles.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Choi, Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda teaches the power supply device of claim 18, but Choi, Nguyen and Masuda fails to teach the power supply further comprising: a high voltage battery; and a second switch disposed between the high voltage supply module high voltage battery and a direct current (DC) input terminal for fast charging among the plurality of terminals wherein the controller is configured to turn on the second switch to supply a high voltage from the voltage battery to the external device in response to a request for the high voltage received through the communication terminal.
However, Mackenzie teaches an electric vehicle charging system which the power supply further comprises: a high voltage battery (see Mackenzie fig 1 element 124, 7A-B element 124 and para 17, ); and a second switch disposed between the high voltage supply module high voltage battery and a direct current (DC) input terminal for fast charging among the plurality of terminals (see Mackenzie fig 1, 7A-B element 152 and para 23, 37-39), wherein the controller is configured to turn on the second switch to supply a high voltage from the voltage battery to the external device in response to a request for the high voltage received through the communication terminal (see Mackenzie para 21, 30 “In the DC charging mode, the AC contactor 154 is open and the DC contactor 152 is closed such that the DC current received by the DC/AC connector 404 is directly supplied to the traction battery 124”, “Operations of the AC contactors 154 and DC contactors 152 may be controlled by the system controller and/or BECM 125.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Choi, Nguyen and Masuda to include the high voltage DC switch from Mackenzie to teach using the DC pins on the charging cable and the use of the DC contactors to connect and disconnect the high voltage from the charging port, thus reducing the chances of accidental electrocution.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Choi, Nguyen, Masuda and Mackenzie teaches the eco-friendly vehicle of claim 19, but Choi, Nguyen and Masuda are silent on teaching in a state in which the inlet of the eco-friendly vehicle complies with a first charging connector standard or a second charging connector standard, the first charging connector standard being CCS1 and the second charging connector standard being CCS2, and in an arrangement in which an L1 terminal or an L2/N terminal defining the AC input terminal is connected to a positive (+) terminal of the low DC-DC converter, a negative (-) terminal of the low DC-DC converter is connected to a protective earth (PE) terminal, the DC input terminals are DC+ and DC- terminals, the fastening confirmation terminal is a proximity detection (PD) terminal, and the communication terminal is a control pilot (CP) terminal.
However, Mackenzie teaches an electric vehicle charging system which teaches in a state in which the inlet of the eco-friendly vehicle complies with a first charging connector standard or a second charging connector standard, the first charging connector standard being CCS1 (see Mackenzie fig 2 and 4, background, and para 23-24), and in an arrangement in which an L1 terminal or an L2/N terminal defining the AC input terminal is connected to a positive (+) terminal of the low DC-DC converter (see Mackenzie fig 1 and 7A-B as the L1 pin is connected to the traction battery and the traction battery is connected to the DC-DC converter and auxiliary battery), a negative (-) terminal of the low DC-DC converter is connected to a protective earth (PE) terminal (see Mackenzie fig 1 and 7A-B as the PE grounds the vehicle including the DC/DC converter), the DC input terminals are DC+ and DC- terminals, the fastening confirmation terminal is a proximity detection (PD) terminal (see Mackenzie para 0024 “CS” pin), and the communication terminal is a control pilot (CP) terminal (see Mackenzie para 0024 “CP” pin).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Choi, Nguyen and Masuda to include the teachings of Mackenzie to teach how each of the components are connected to each other and supply power.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2020/0331355 A1) in view of Nguyen (US 2025/0079843 A1), Masuda (US 2018/0065495 A1) and Mackenzie (US 2025/0091456 A1) and further in view of Jang (US 2018/0334044 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Choi, Nguyen, Masuda and Mackenzie teaches the power supply device of claim 4, but are silent on teaching the controller is configured to turn off the first switch and the second switch and then unlock the inlet and the connector of the external device in response to a request for termination of the control voltage received through the communication terminal.
However, Jang teaches an electric vehicle charging system which a controller is configured to open multiple switches to disconnect power from the DC/DC converter when not charging (see Jang para 41-44).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Choi, Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda to include the ability to disconnect the charging port from the DC/DC converter to protect the components of the vehicle from faulty charging equipment from Jang.
The combination of Choi, Nguyen, Mackenzie and Jang fails to teach unlocking the inlet port.
However, Masuda teaches an electric vehicle charging system which a controller controls the locking device to unlock the inlet and the connector of the external device in response to a request for termination of the control voltage received through the communication terminal (see Masuda para 0042 and 0079).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Choi, Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda to include the teachings of Masuda to allow the charging port to be locked and unlocked when charging a vehicle to prevent arching when unplugging.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2020/0331355 A1) in view of Nguyen (US 2025/0079843 A1), Masuda (US 2018/0065495 A1), Mackenzie (US 2025/0091456 A1), and Jang (US 2018/0334044 A1), and in view of Komatsu et al. (US pat 6,104,163).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Choi, Nguyen, Masuda, Mackenzie and Jang teaches the power supply device of claim 5, but is silent on the teaching of the controller is configured to sequentially turn off the second switch then the first switch in response to the request for termination of the control voltage.
However, Komatsu teaches a switching of two switches upon a termination of charging signal for two battery modules (see Komatsu col 6:47-57 and 7:36-42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Choi, Nguyen, Masuda and Mackenzie to include the switching of the charging system found taught by Komatsu to control the battery charging of the two battery modules.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2020/0331355 A1) in view of Nguyen (US 2025/0079843 A1), Masuda (US 2018/0065495 A1) and Mackenzie (US 2025/0091456 A1) further in view of Mohamed (US 2025/0096571 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Choi, Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda teaches the power supply device of claim 4, but is silent on teaching the external device comprises:
a DC/AC converter configured to convert a high voltage of the high voltage battery into AC voltage and supply the AC voltage to an external load; or
a DC/DC converter configured to step up or step down the high voltage of the high voltage battery and supply the corresponding voltage to the external load.
However, Mohamed teaches an external device comprising a DC/AC converter configured to convert a high voltage of the high voltage supply module into AC voltage and supply the AC voltage to an external load (see Mohamed fig 2 element 22’ and para 0023 “The smart inverter 22 converts DC output of the EV 2 into AC so as to provide power to the loads 5 as a secondary power source.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Choi, Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda to include the teachings of Mohamed to be able to power external devices from the energy stored in the EV’s batteries. Gas powered vehicles have been able to power external AC devices from the onboard battery by using an inverter for decades.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Choi, Nguyen, Mackenzie, Masuda and Mohamed teaches the power supply device of claim 8, but Choi, Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda fails to teach the external load comprises a load for vehicle-to-everything (V2X).
However, Mohamed teaches the external load comprises a load for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) (see Mohamed para 0020).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Choi, Nguyen Mackenzie and Masuda to include the ability to power external loads in a V2X configuration from Mohamed. This would allow the vehicle to be used as a backup power source, or sell power back to the electrical grid, or to be an off-grid power storage system.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Choi, Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda teaches the power supply device of claim 4, but fails to teach the external device comprises an AC/DC converter to convert AC voltage to DC voltage to directly charge the DC battery.
However, Mohamed teaches the external device comprises an AC/DC converter configured to convert AC voltage to DC voltage (see Mohamed fig 4 element 22’ and para 0022-0023); and the high voltage supply module is configured to be directly charged by the converted DC voltage through the DC input terminal (see Mohamed fig 4 element 21 and para 0026).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Choi, Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda to include the teachings of Mohamed to teach the use of an off vehicle AC to DC converter to allow higher power transfer as vehicles are limited in their AC charging due to the weight and size of larger AC to DC converters. Higher power EV chargers can cost as much and weigh as much as the vehicle itself.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US 2025/0079843 A1) and further in view of Mackenzie (US 2025/0091456 A1) and further in view of Masuda (US 2018/0065495 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Nguyen teaches a bidirectional electric vehicle charging system comprising:
a low DC-DC converter (see Nguyen fig 1, 4-6 element 36 and para 0034);
an inlet comprising a plurality of terminals for fast charging and slow charging, wherein, among the plurality of terminals, a terminal connected to the low DC-DC converter is an alternating current (AC) terminal for slow charging (see Nguyen para 0036);
a first switch disposed between the AC input terminal of the plurality of terminals and the low DC-DC converter (see Nguyen fig 4-6 switches S11-S14 and para 0040);
a controller configured to turn on the first switch to supply, through the AC input terminal, a control voltage for operating an external device, the control voltage configured to be supplied from the low DC-DC converter to the external device in a state in which a connector of the external device is connected to the inlet (see Nguyen fig 1 controller 40, and para 0040, “The controller 40 may be configured for controlling AC/DC converter 34, the DC/DC converter 36, and the DC/DC converter 36 according to the plurality of powering modes.”, The energy from the batteries are converted by the DC/DC converter then converted again by the AC/DC converter to supply power to an external device through the AC terminals).
But Nguyen is silent on an inlet comprising a fastening confirmation terminal, a communication terminal, and a plurality of terminals for fast charging and slow charging, wherein the inlet of the eco-friendly vehicle is compliant with a first charging connector standard or a second charging connector standard, and wherein the first charging connector standard is CCS1 and the second charging connector standard is CCS2; a second switch disposed between the high voltage battery and a direct current (DC)input terminal for fast charging among the plurality of terminals: and a controller configured to turn on the first switch to supply, through the AC input terminal, a control voltage from the low DC-DC converter to an external device in a state in which a connector of the external device is connected to the inlet in response to a confirmation that the inlet and the connector of the external device are connected through the fastening confirmation terminal and to lock the inlet and the connector of the external device in response to a confirmation that communication with the external device is normal through the communication terminal, wherein the controller is further configured to turn on the second switch to supply a high voltage from the high voltage battery to the external device in response to a request for the high voltage received through the communication terminal.
However, Mackenzie teaches an inlet comprising a fastening confirmation terminal (see Mackenzie fig 4 CS pin, para 31, 37), a communication terminal (see Mackenzie fig 4 CP pin, para 31, 37), and a plurality of terminals for fast charging and slow charging (see Mackenzie fig 2 , fig 4 pins L1-L3 and N, para 24), wherein the inlet of the eco-friendly vehicle is compliant with a first charging connector standard, and wherein the first charging connector standard is CCS1 (see Mackenzie background, para 23-24); a second switch disposed between the high voltage battery and a direct current (DC) input terminal for fast charging among the plurality of terminals (see Mackenzie fig 1 element 152 and para 31-32): and a controller configured to turn on the first switch to supply a control voltage from the low DC-DC converter to an external device in a state in which a connector of the external device is connected to the inlet in response to a confirmation that the inlet and the connector of the external device are connected through the fastening confirmation terminal (see Mackenzie fig 1 element 150, and para 30-31, 33-34); wherein the controller is further configured to turn on the second switch to supply a high voltage from the high voltage battery to the external device in response to a request for the high voltage received through the communication terminal (see Mackenzie fig 1 element 150, and para 32).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nguyen to include the teachings of Mackenzie to teach the controller and communication to allow an electric vehicle to both charge via slower AC and faster DC charging methods.
Nguyen and Mackenzie are silent on teaching a controller configured to lock the inlet and the connector of the external device in response to a confirmation that communication with the external device is normal through the communication terminal.
However, Masuda teaches an electric vehicle charging system which the controller is configured to lock the inlet and the connector of the external device in response to a confirmation that communication with the external device is normal through the communication terminal (see Masuda para 42 and 75-79).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nguyen and Mackenzie to include the locking mechanism from Masuda to prevent the charging plug from being unplugged while the vehicle’s batteries are charging, thus reducing the damage to the connectors and increasing safety.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda teaches the power supply device of claim 11, but Nguyen and Masuda are silent on teaching in a state of charging under the first charging connector standard, in an arrangement in which an L1 terminal or an L2/N terminal defining the AC input terminal is connected to a positive (+) terminal of the low DC-DC converter, a negative (-) terminal of the low DC-DC converter is connected to a protective earth (PE) terminal, the DC input terminals are DC+ and DC- terminals, the fastening confirmation terminal is a proximity detection (PD) terminal, and the communication terminal is a control pilot (CP) terminal.
However, Mackenzie teaches a power supply device where in a state of charging under the first charging connector standard, in an arrangement in which an L1 terminal or an L2/N terminal defining the AC input terminal is connected to a positive (+) terminal of the low DC-DC converter (see Mackenzie fig 1 and 7A-B as the L1 pin is connected to the traction battery and the traction battery is connected to the DC-DC converter and auxiliary battery), a negative (-) terminal of the low DC-DC converter is connected to a protective earth (PE) terminal (see Mackenzie fig 1 and 7A-B as the PE grounds the vehicle including the DC/DC converter), the DC input terminals are DC+ and DC- terminals (see Mackenzie para 0027), the fastening confirmation terminal is a proximity detection (PD) terminal (see Mackenzie para 0024 “CS” pin), and the communication terminal is a control pilot (CP) terminal (see Mackenzie para 0024 “CP” pin).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nguyen and Masuda to include the teachings of Mackenzie to teach how each of the components are connected to each other and supply power.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda teaches the power supply device of claim 11, but Nguyen and Masuda are silent on teaching: in a state of charging under the first charging connector standard, in an arrangement in which an Li terminal or an L2/N terminal defining the AC input terminal is connected to a positive (+) terminal of the low DC-DC converter, a negative (-) terminal of the low DC-DC converter is connected to the other of the Li terminal and the L2/N terminal, the first switch is disposed between the Li terminal or the L2/N terminal and the positive (+) terminal of the low DC-DC converter and between the other of the Li terminal and the L2/N terminal and the negative (-) terminal of the low DC-DC converter, the DC input terminals are DC+ and DC- terminals, the fastening confirmation terminal is a proximity detection (PD) terminal, and the communication terminal is a control pilot (CP) terminal.
However, Mackenzie teaches a power supply device where in a state of charging under the first charging connector standard, in an arrangement in which an L1 terminal or an L2/N terminal defining the AC input terminal is connected to a positive (+) terminal of the low DC-DC converter (see Mackenzie fig 1 and 7A-B as the L1 pin is connected to the traction battery and the traction battery is connected to the DC-DC converter and auxiliary battery), a negative (-) terminal of the low DC-DC converter is connected to the other of the L1 terminal and the L2/N terminal (see Mackenzie fig 1 and 7A-B as the L2 pin is connected to the traction battery and the traction battery is connected to the DC-DC converter and auxiliary battery), the first switch is disposed between the L1 terminal or the L2/N terminal and the positive (+) terminal of the low DC-DC converter and between the other of the L1 terminal and the L2/N terminal and the negative (-) terminal of the low DC-DC converter (see Mackenzie fig 1 and 7A-B as the L2 pin is connected to the traction battery and the traction battery is connected to the DC-DC converter and auxiliary battery), the DC input terminals are DC+ and DC- terminals (see Mackenzie para 0027), the fastening confirmation terminal is a proximity detection (PD) terminal (see Mackenzie para 0024 “CS” pin), and the communication terminal is a control pilot (CP) terminal (see Mackenzie para 0024 “CP” pin).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen and Masuda to include the arrangement of connection pins from Mackenzie to allow the charging system to comply with the CCS charging standard that are available at charging stations.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US 2025/0079843 A1) and further in view of Mackenzie (US 2025/0091456 A1) and Masuda (US 2018/0065495 A1), and further in view of Malik (US 2025/0183677 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda teaches the power supply device of claim 11, but Nguyen and Masuda are silent on teaching in a state of charging under the second charging connector standard, in an arrangement in which the AC input terminal comprises an L1 terminal, an L2 terminal, or an L3 terminal, a negative (-) terminal of the low DC-DC converter is connected to a protective earth (PE) terminal, the DC input terminals are DC+ and DC- terminals, the fastening confirmation terminal is a proximity detection (PD) terminal, and the communication terminal is a control pilot (CP) terminal.
However, Malik teaches a CCS2 charging connector (see Malik fig 37 and para 274-275).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nguyen, Mackenzie and Masuda to include the CCS2 charging connector from Malik to allow the system to be compatible with CCS2 equipped vehicles found in European countries.
However, Mackenzie teaches a power supply device where in a state of charging under the second charging connector standard, in an arrangement in which the AC input terminal comprises an L1 terminal, an L2 terminal, or an L3 terminal (see Mackenzie fig 1, 7A-7B, and para 38-39, as the L1 and L2 terminals are AC input terminals), a negative (-) terminal of the low DC-DC converter is connected to a protective earth (PE) terminal (see Mackenzie fig 1, 4, 7A-7B, and para 24, as the PE pin is configured to operate as a ground of the vehicle), the DC input terminals are DC+ and DC- terminals (see Mackenzie para 0027), the fastening confirmation terminal is a proximity detection (PD) terminal (see Mackenzie para 0024 “CS” pin), and the communication terminal is a control pilot (CP) terminal (see Mackenzie para 0024 “CP” pin).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nguyen, Masuda and Malik to include the teachings of Mackenzie to teach how each of the components are connected to each other and supply power.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Choi (US 2020/0331355 A1) in view of Nguyen (US 2025/0079843 A1), Masuda (US 2018/0065495 A1) and Mackenzie (US 2025/0091456 A1) and further in view of Green (US 11,784,501 B2).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Choi, Nguyen, Masuda and Mackenzie teaches the power supply device of claim 4, but is silent on the battery voltage ranges.
However, Green teaches the control voltage is a DC voltage between 12 V and 48 V (see Green col 173:35-37); and the high voltage is a DC voltage between 400 V and 800 V (see Green col 173:39-42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Mackenzie and Masuda to include the voltage ranges of electric vehicle found in Green to allow the charging system to be applied to a wide range of EV battery systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA J SWEET whose telephone number is (571)272-6776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 4:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/JOSHUA JAMES SWEET/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights