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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 requires “the plurality of contacts comprise at least one control contact by means of which the contacting check is performed, wherein the plurality of contacts comprise at least two control contacts by means of which a contacting orientation of the vehicle contact unit is detected” but does not clarify what total number of contacts are necessary and does not clearly define whether or not the control contacts can perform more than one task. Is it necessary that there be 3 control contacts? Is it necessary for just two control contacts if one performs two tasks? Are both types of control contacts necessary because there is no conjunction such as “and” present to say that both are needed. Can it be either form of control contact? Neither is a semicolon present that would dictate a separate necessary item. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 9-12, & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jernej et al (U.S. PGPub 2021/0122256).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Jernej teaches:
A method of checking a ground contact unit of an electric charging infrastructure, wherein the ground contact unit has a plate-shaped base body and a plurality of contacts which are arranged on a charging surface of the base body, against which a vehicle contact unit can come to rest, wherein the plurality of contacts comprise at least one protective conductor contact and power contacts which are assigned to at least one potential level via at least one contact switch, the method comprising the steps of:
- performing a contacting check to determine whether at least a subset of the plurality of contacts of the ground contact unit is contacted (Fig. 1 Elements 2, 14 & 20 wherein the car and charging system are disclosed contacting each other. Paragraphs 0039, 0068-0069, & 0166-0169.);
- performing a protective conductor check to ascertain a contact quality by passing a test current across at least one contact of the plurality of contacts (Paragraphs 0016-0017, 0044, 0048, 0126, & 0164-0165.); and
- performing continuous touch protection monitoring of the contacts by continuously monitoring switching positions of the contact switches which are assigned to power contacts that are not part of the subset of the contacted contacts, and/or by continuously monitoring an existing contacting of at least one contact that is part of the subset of the contacted contacts and/or by performing a voltage measurement on at least one of the contacts (Paragraphs 0043-0045.).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jernej teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej teaches the subset of the plurality of contacts is associated with a contacting area of the charging surface (Fig. 1 Elements 12, 14 & 20. Paragraphs 0069-0078.), which is covered by a component of the vehicle contact unit when a conductive connection is established between the ground contact unit and the vehicle contact unit (Fig. 1 Elements 12, 14 & 20 wherein the car and charging system are over the charger. Paragraphs 0069-0078.).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Jernej teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej teaches power contacts which are not part of the subset of the contacted contacts are switched potential-free, wherein the respective switching positions of the contact switches which are associated with the power contacts that are switched potential-free are continuously monitored (Paragraph 0003.).
Regarding claim 10, Jernej teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej teaches a switch-off device is activated if it is determined during the continuous touch protection monitoring that the touch protection is not ensured, wherein if at least one of the contact switches is not in the an intended switching position, which is assigned to a power contact that is not part of the subset of the contacted contacts, and/or the existing contacting of the at least one contact that is part of the subset of the contacted contacts has broken (Paragraphs 0171-0172.).
Regarding claim 11, Jernej teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej teaches the power contacts each have a current path within the ground contact unit (Fig. 4 & 5 Elements 22, 38, & 40. See paragraphs 0080-0090, 0017-0123, & elsewhere.), wherein each current path has at least two switching elements assigned to it (Fig. 4 & 5 Elements 22, 38, & 40. See paragraphs 0080-0090, 0017-0123, & elsewhere.), including one contact switch per power contact and a shared main switch for all power contacts (Fig. 4 & 5 Elements 22, 38, & 40. See paragraphs 0080-0090, 0017-0123, & elsewhere.).
PNG
media_image2.png
368
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
772
532
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Jernej teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej teaches a self-test of the power contacts is performed in order to ensure that the contact switches of all power contacts are open, in particular wherein the self-test is performed before the contacting check and/or after a charging process has been effected and the contacting has been released (Paragraph 0039.).
Regarding claim 15, Jernej teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej teaches the contact across which the test current is passed during the protective conductor check has previously been brought to a protective conductor level with which the protective conductor contact is associated, wherein the contact is connected to the protective conductor level via a relay (Fig. 1 Elements 2, 14 & 20 wherein the car and charging system are disclosed contacting each other. Paragraphs 0039, 0068-0069, & 0166-0169. Relays are disclosed in paragraphs 0031, 0047, 0087, 0094, 0116, & elsewhere.).
Regarding Independent claim 16, Jernej teaches:
An electric charging infrastructure for establishing a conductive connection to a vehicle contact unit, wherein the charging infrastructure includes a ground contact unit which has a plate-shaped base body and a plurality of contacts which are arranged on a charging surface of the base body, against which the vehicle contact unit can come to rest, wherein the plurality of contacts comprise at least one protective conductor contact and power contacts which are assigned to at least one potential level via at least one contact switch, and wherein the charging infrastructure includes a checking system which is configured to;
- perform a contacting check to determine whether at least a subset of the plurality of contacts of the ground contact unit is contacted (Paragraphs 0160-0169.);
- perform a protective conductor check to ascertain a contact quality, wherein the checking system is configured to pass a test current across at least one contact of the plurality of contacts (Paragraphs 0016-0017, 0044, 0048, 0126, & 0164-0165.); and
- perform a continuous touch protection monitoring of the contacts, the checking system being configured to continuously monitor switching positions of the contact switches which are assigned to power contacts that are not part of the subset of the contacted contacts, and/or to continuously monitor an existing contacting of at least one contact that is part of the subset of the contacted contacts, and/or to perform a voltage measurement on at least one of the contacts (Paragraphs 0043-0045.).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jernej et al (U.S. PGPub 2021/0122256) in view of Wickersham (U.S. Pat. # 3,370,232).
Regarding claim 3, Jernej teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej does not explicitly teach an insulation check is carried out between two contacts by applying a test voltage and measuring an insulation resistance which is compared with a predefined insulation resistance threshold value.
Wickersham teaches an insulation check is carried out between two contacts by applying a test voltage and measuring an insulation resistance which is compared with a predefined insulation resistance threshold value (Column 3 lines 24-33.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Wickersham to the teachings of Jernej such that an insulation check is carried out between two contacts by applying a test voltage and measuring an insulation resistance which is compared with a predefined insulation resistance threshold value because insulation resistance checks are performed to prevent catastrophic failures such as shorts that lead to fires.
Regarding claim 4, Jernej & Wickersham teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej does not explicitly teach the two contacts used in the insulation check are neighboring contacts on the charging surface in the subset.
Wickersham teaches the two contacts used in the insulation check are neighboring contacts on the charging surface in the subset (Column 3 lines 24-33 wherein it states the “first terminal addressed in a two-point continuity test or, in insulation tests, the single terminal selected for insulation resistance determination between it and all other terminals of either lower or higher order addresses” which would encompass the limits of this claim.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Wickersham to the teachings of Jernej such that the two contacts used in the insulation check are neighboring contacts on the charging surface in the subset because it is the easiest measurement to make from the point of view of a person with a meter. Check the closest ones first.
Regarding claim 6, Jernej & Wickersham teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej & Wickersham do not explicitly teach during the insulation check, the insulation from one of the contacts in the subset, to a point on the charging surface of the base body is measured.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to, during the insulation check, the insulation from one of the contacts in the subset, to a point on the charging surface of the base body is measured because that is the path of most of the current which could cause damage if high current flowed through damaged wires.
Regarding claim 7, Jernej & Wickersham teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej & Wickersham do not explicitly teach during the insulation check, the insulation from one of the contacts, in particular a contact of the subset, to a point on the charging surface of the base body is measured.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to, during the insulation check, the insulation from one of the contacts, in particular a contact of the subset, to a point on the charging surface of the base body is measured because that is the path of most of the current which could cause damage if high current flowed through damaged wires.
Regarding claim 14, Jernej & Wickersham teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej & Wickersham do not explicitly teach during the insulation check the insulation between the at least one control contact and one of the power contacts is checked.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to, during the insulation check the insulation between the at least one control contact and one of the power contacts is checked because that is the path of most of the current which could cause damage if high current flowed through damaged wires.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jernej et al (U.S. PGPub 2021/0122256) in view of Wickersham (U.S. Pat. # 3,370,232) & Klausner et al (U.S. PGPub # 2020/0101856).
Regarding claim 13, Jernej & Wickersham teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej & Wickersham do not explicitly teach the plurality of contacts comprise at least one control contact by means of which the contacting check is performed, wherein the plurality of contacts comprise at least two control contacts by means of which a contacting orientation of the vehicle contact unit is detected.
Klausner teaches the plurality of contacts comprise at least one control contact by means of which the contacting check is performed (Paragraph 0039.) , wherein the plurality of contacts comprise at least two control contacts by means of which a contacting orientation of the vehicle contact unit is detected (Paragraphs 0077 & 0144.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Klausner to the teachings of Jernej & Wickersham such that the plurality of contacts comprise at least one control contact by means of which the contacting check is performed because this allows one to “detect fault-free contact making and to deliver signals to a control device for operation of the electromagnet.” See paragraph 0039 of Klausner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 & 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 5, Jernej & Wickersham teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej & Wickersham do not explicitly teach the insulation check is only carried out if it has been previously determined that at least the subset of the plurality of contacts is contacted.
Regarding claim 8, Jernej & Wickersham teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Jernej & Wickersham do not explicitly teach the protective conductor check is only performed if the insulation check has been successfully performed before.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights