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 7-8 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 7 recites the limitation "the electronic unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 depends upon claim 1 which does not recite “an electronic unit”. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “the electronic unit” as “an electronic unit”.
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) 1 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikihara (US 20200156485 A1) in view of Hegele (DE 102014004948 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kamikihara discloses an electric vehicle or hybrid vehicle (vehicle 2, fig.1) comprising an inductive charging device (power reception device 4, figs.1-11) and a battery (power storage device, figs,1-11) chargeable with the inductive charging device, wherein: the inductive charging device comprises at least one catch (connecting members 15 and 16, figs.1-11) that connects the inductive charging device to a vehicle body (body frame 20, figs.1-11); and the inductive charging device is configured to be displaced from the electric vehicle or hybrid vehicle (device 4 is displaced in a crash as seen in figures 8-9) in the event of a crash via the catch (15 and 16, figs.8-9). Kamikihara fails to disclose the device ejecting from the vehicle in a crash.
However, Hegele discloses a catch (catch element 48, fig.1) the device is configured to be ejected (arrow 46, fig.1) from the electric vehicle or hybrid vehicle in the event of a crash and to be held outside the electric vehicle or hybrid vehicle via the at least one catch (battery 10 is displaced and caught by the catch 48. Fig.1).
Kamikihara and Hegele are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamikihara with the catch of Hegele with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of helping protect the device when in a crash while keeping the device attached to the vehicle for safety.
Regarding claim 9, Kamikihara in combination with Hegele discloses wherein the inductive charging device comprises holding arms (flanges 80-84 and arms of members 7 are screwed to body 20, fig.5) that are screwed to the vehicle body, the at least one catch (connecting members 15 and 16, figs.2-5) has a first longitudinal end that is screwed to the vehicle body via one of the holding arms (fig.5).
Regarding claim 10, Kamikihara in combination with Hegele wherein the inductive charging device comprises two front holding arms and two rear holding arms (flanges 80-84 and arms of members 7 are screwed to body 20, fig.5) viewed in a direction of travel, and the at least one catch comprises two catches (15 and 16) that are screwed to the vehicle body (fig.5) with their respective first longitudinal end via an associated front holding arm (fig.5).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikihara (US 20200156485 A1) in view of Hegele (DE 102014004948 A1), and in further view of Kato (US 20130075173 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kamikihara in combination with Hegele discloses the electric vehicle of claim 1, but fails to disclose the catch is metal.
However, Kato discloses wherein the at least one catch is a catch strap made of metal (connecting members 123 and 133 are made from metal, figs.2-3, paragraphs [0077 and 0087]).
Kamikihara and Kato are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamikihara with the metal catch of Kato with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of metal is a well-known material used in electric vehicles to have high strength, durable, high-temperature resistance, and can stand high loads and impacts.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikihara (US 20200156485 A1) in view of Hegele (DE 102014004948 A1), and in further view of Shin (US 20210146763 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kamikihara in combination with Hegele discloses the electric vehicle of claim 1, but fails to disclose the catch is plastic.
However, Shin discloses wherein the at least one catch is a catch strap made of plastic (plastic hinge brackets 20, figs.1-5).
Kamikihara and Shin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamikihara with the plastic catch of Shin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of plastic is a well-known material used in electric vehicles to reduce weight, cost-effective, allow for design flexibility, and plastic can absorb energy during impact to protect components.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikihara (US 20200156485 A1) in view of Hegele (DE 102014004948 A1), and in further view of Liu (US 20230085399 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kamikihara in combination with Hegele discloses the electric vehicle of claim 1, but fail to disclose a cooling plate.
However, Liu discloses wherein the inductive charging device comprises interconnected components that include: an electronic unit (100, fig.2), a cooling plate (cold plate 140 and plate 160, fig.2) and a bottom plate (substrate 122, fig.2) made from glass fiber reinforced plastic (it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the bottom plate can be made from glass fiber reinforced plastic as one of the few materials that can be used).
Kamikihara and Liu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless charging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamikihara with the cooling system of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of keeping the electronics cool making them more efficient and extend the lifespan.
Regarding claim 5, Kamikihara in combination with Hegele and Liu discloses wherein the catch is connected to the cooling plate or the electronic unit of the inductive charging device at a second longitudinal end (Kamikihara, connecting members 15 and 16 are connected to the inductive charging device 4, fig.5; Liu, 16/26 , figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Kamikihara in combination with Hegele and Liu wherein the cooling plate is made of aluminum and is connectable to a cooling circuit or an air cooling of the electric vehicle or hybrid vehicle (Liu, cold plate 140 and plate 160, fig.2-3).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikihara (US 20200156485 A1) in view of Hegele (DE 102014004948 A1), and in further view of Fujii (US 20200010123 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kamikihara in combination with Hegele disclose the electrical vehicle of claim 1, but fail to disclose a housing for an electronic unit.
However, Fujii discloses further comprising a housing (housing for high voltage assembly 14, fig.2) for receiving a stator power electronics unit (high voltage assembly 14 receives power for machine 10, fig.2), the housing being formed from a non-magnetizable material (it would be obvious to have the high voltage assembly 14 housing made from non-magnetizable material to protect the electronics).
Kamikihara and Fujii are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamikihara with the power electronics of Fujii with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results as power electronics are well known and need in electrical vehicles to convert power from the battery for the electric motor.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikihara (US 20200156485 A1) in view of Hegele (DE 102014004948 A1), Fujii (US 20200010123 A1), and in further view of Laemmle (CN 111145994 B).
Regarding claim 12, Kamikihara in combination with Hegele and Fujii disclose the electric vehicle of claim 11, but fails to disclose a protective coating.
However, Laemmle discloses further comprising a protective coating (EMC protection device may be provided a suitable barrier coating) arranged between the power electronics and an encapsulation material for protecting the power electronics (EMC protection device may be provided a suitable barrier coating).
Kamikihara and Laemmle are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of charging device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamikihara with the protective coating of Laemmle with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of protecting the housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 which is rejected, but claim 7 has the limitation of “wherein the electronic unit (6) comprises a housing (9) having a ramp (10) or a chamfer (11) configured such that the inductive charging device (2) slides downwards from the electric vehicle or hybrid vehicle (1) via the ramp (10) or the chamfer (11) in the event of a crash.” The primary reference of Kamikihara and teaching reference of Hegele fail to disclose an electronic unit comprising a housing. Fujii (US 20200010123 A1) discloses a electronic unit comprising a housing as seen in figures 1-2, but fails to disclose the housing having “a ramp (10) or a chamfer (11) configured such that the inductive charging device (2) slides downwards from the electric vehicle or hybrid vehicle (1) via the ramp (10) or the chamfer (11) in the event of a crash.” It would require serious modification and multiple references modifying each other to disclose the limitation of claim 7, making it hindsight reconstruction. The prior art either alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 7. For the reasons above claim 7 has allowable subject matter, but has 112 issues as discussed above.
Claim 8 depends upon claim 7 giving it the same allowable subject matter and 112 issue as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights