Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0074928, filed on 6/10/24.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
6. Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “measure an inter-terminal voltage due to a contact resistance between rapid charging terminals provided in an inlet and an outlet, while rapid charging is performed, and determine whether the rapid charging terminal is deteriorated based on the measured inter-terminal voltage, wherein the voltage is measured using a terminal not used for rapid charging among the terminals provided in the inlet and the outlet” is directed to an abstract idea of using mathematical algorithm/function and data processing for detecting a deterioration of a rapid charging terminal. This is merely mathematical algorithm which is part of software instructions carried out using generic computer/processor.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea itself is monopolized here rather than being a particular narrow application of the abstract idea. Generic computer functions are described here, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (charging terminal or connector).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because generic processor/controller/computer is used and the setup taught is considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art (see prior art of record: Kim Yong En (KR 20220124321), Figures 1-3, provided in the IDS; Wu Xiao-yong, CN 109217487, Figures 10-11, English translation attached).
7. Claims 2-10 are also rejected as they further limit claim 1.
8. Regarding claim 11, the limitation of “a first operation of measuring an inter-terminal voltage due to contact resistance between rapid charging terminals respectively provided in an inlet and an outlet, while rapid charging is performed; and a second operation of determining whether the rapid charging terminal is deteriorated based on the measured inter-terminal voltage, wherein, in the first operation, the voltage is measured using a terminal not used for rapid charging among terminals provided in the inlet and the outlet” is directed to an abstract idea of using mathematical algorithm/function and data processing for detecting a deterioration of a rapid charging terminal. This is merely mathematical algorithm which is part of software instructions carried out using generic computer/processor.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea itself is monopolized here rather than being a particular narrow application of the abstract idea. Generic computer functions are described here, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (charging terminal or connector).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because generic processor/controller/computer is used and the setup taught is considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art (see prior art of record: Kim Yong En (KR 20220124321), Figures 1-3, provided in the IDS; Wu Xiao-yong, CN 109217487, Figures 10-11, English translation attached).
9. Claims 12-20 are also rejected as they further limit claim 11.
Note: no prior art rejection is made at the moment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/NEEL D SHAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights