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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/20/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 11, and 15 recite the follow limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“establishing communication between an EV and an EVSE ... providing AC power ...” without first establishing the phrase to be abbreviated. Based on the Specification and for the purposes of compact prosecution, “an EV and an EVSE” will be interpreted as “an electric vehicle (EV) and an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) ... providing alternating current (AC) power ...”.
Similarly, claim 2 recites “... convert the AC power to DC power ...” without first establishing the phrase to be abbreviated. Based on the Specification and for the purposes of compact prosecution, “... convert the AC power to DC power ...” will be interpreted as “... convert the AC power to direct current (DC) power ...”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-2, 4, 11-12, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 12 of copending Application No. 19/212,408 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
19/212,443 – Instant Application
19/212,408 – Copending Application
Claim 1:
A method for charging an electric vehicle, comprising:
establishing communication between an EV and an EVSE using a high-power connector;
initiating a charging session providing AC power using a first frequency from the EVSE to the EV;
determining a current limit for an on-board EV charger based on a duty cycle associated with a signal from the EVSE to the EV;
determining, based on the current limit, a charging capability for the on-board EV charger;
when the charging capability is greater than a threshold value, scaling the AC power using a second frequency to enable high-power charging in excess of the threshold value; and
when the charging capability is not greater than the threshold value, maintaining the first frequency.
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the threshold value is 19.2kW, and wherein scaling the AC power using the second frequency enables on-board EV charger to convert the AC power to DC power in excess of the threshold value.
Claim 1:
A method of high-power direct current (DC) charging of at least one vehicle battery, the method comprising:
connecting an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) to a vehicle charging system using a high-power connector;
performing a handshake between the EVSE and the vehicle charging system to initiate supply of AC power from the EVSE to the vehicle charging system via the high-power connector; and
converting the AC power to DC power in excess of 19.2 kW by at least one on-board charger in the vehicle charging system; and
charging at least one vehicle battery using the DC power in excess of 19.2 kW.
It can be seen that the scope of independent claim 1 in copending application ‘408 perform the same connection, communication, scaling, and supplying excess power as the claimed in claims 1 and 2 of the instant application ‘443.
Dependent Claims:
19/212,443 – Instant Application
19/212,408 – Copending Application
Claim 1:
A method for charging an electric vehicle, comprising:
establishing communication between an EV and an EVSE using a high-power connector;
initiating a charging session providing AC power using a first frequency from the EVSE to the EV;
determining a current limit for an on-board EV charger based on a duty cycle associated with a signal from the EVSE to the EV;
determining, based on the current limit, a charging capability for the on-board EV charger;
when the charging capability is greater than a threshold value, scaling the AC power using a second frequency to enable high-power charging in excess of the threshold value; and
when the charging capability is not greater than the threshold value, maintaining the first frequency.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein the signal indicates that the current limit is greater than 80 Amps.
Claim 7: The method of any one of claims 1-6, wherein performing the handshake between the EVSE and the vehicle charging system comprises:
sending, by the EVSE via the high-power connector, a signal indicating that the EVSE is configured to supply greater than 80 amps of current; and
detecting the signal by the vehicle charging system.
Claim 12:
The system of claim 11, wherein the high-power connector is a North American Charging Standard (NACS) connector.
Claim 12:
The method of any one of claims 1-11, wherein the high-power connector is a North American Charging Standard (NACS) connector.
It can be seen that the scope of claim 1 in the instant application 19/212,443 is analogous to the copending application 19/212,408, as both are pertaining to a system for communication and supplying AC and DC power to an electric vehicle based on handshake information. Additionally, it can be seen that the dependent claims listed above are related as they both recite analogous limitations to further define the system as outlined in claim 1.
A difference in the claims can be seen in claim 7 of the copending application ‘408 as the claim recites sending a signal indicator that the EVSE can supply greater than 80 amps of current, whereas in the instant application ‘443 describes these elements in independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4. In regards to claims 11 and 15 of the instant application ‘443, the claims recite analogous limitations to rejected independent claim 1 and are rejected under the same premise.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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) 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 11-14, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooker et al. (20240001779; hereinafter Hooker) in view of Hartnagel et al. (20220194255; hereinafter Hartnagel)
Regarding claim 1, Hooker teaches a method for charging an electric vehicle (Hooker: Abstract), comprising:
establishing communication between an EV and an EVSE using a high-power connector (Hooker: “EVSE devices are configured to utilize a handshake procedure with an electric vehicle once a physical connection is established” ¶ 29);
initiating a charging session providing AC power using a first frequency from the EVSE to the EV (Hooker: “When the electric vehicle is ready to charge, the electric vehicle may notify the EVSE device over the CP connection, causing the EVSE device to transition to a charging state ... which activates a wave generator in the EVSE device to output a 1 kHz square wave signal ... the EVSE device is able to communicate the maximum allowed current that the electric vehicle may draw while charging” ¶ 30);
determining a current limit for an on-board EV charger based on a duty cycle associated with a signal from the EVSE to the EV (Hooker: “the EVSE device is able to communicate the maximum allowed current that the electric vehicle may draw while charging by varying the duty cycle of the square wave signal” ¶ 30);
...
However, Hooker fails to teach determining, based on the current limit, a charging capability for the on-board EV charger;
when the charging capability is greater than a threshold value, scaling the AC power using a second frequency to enable high-power charging in excess of the threshold value; and
when the charging capability is not greater than the threshold value, maintaining the first frequency.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hartnagel teaches determining, based on the current limit, a charging capability for the on-board EV charger (Hartnagel: “level as the SOC of the battery” ¶ 28);
when the charging capability is greater than a threshold value, scaling the AC power using a second frequency to enable high-power charging in excess of the threshold value (Hartnagel: “the EVSE 138 may start with a high charging power near the maximum power at the beginning of the process and gradually reduce the charging power to a lower steady level as the SOC of the battery 124 increases” ¶ 28); and
when the charging capability is not greater than the threshold value, maintaining the first frequency (Hartnagel: “the EVSE 138 may start with a high charging power near the maximum power at the beginning of the process and gradually reduce the charging power to a lower steady level as the SOC of the battery 124 increases” ¶ 28).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the charging system of Hooker so that it also includes the element of high power charging based on capacity, as taught by Hartnagel, in order to improve battery life (Hartnagel: ¶ 29).
Regarding claim 3, Hooker fails to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring a charging state based on a second signal from the EVSE; and adjusting the AC power to approach the charging capability of the on-board EV charger.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hartnagel teaches monitoring a charging state based on a second signal from the EVSE; and adjusting the AC power to approach the charging capability of the on-board EV charger (Hartnagel: “the EVSE 138 may start with a high charging power near the maximum power at the beginning of the process and gradually reduce the charging power to a lower steady level as the SOC of the battery 124 increases” ¶ 28).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the charging system of Hooker so that it also includes the element of adjusting power based on capacity, as taught by Hartnagel, in order to improve battery life (Hartnagel: ¶ 29).
Regarding claim 5, Hooker in view of Hartnagel teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: pausing the charging session while determining the current limit (Hooker: “Upon detection of a physical connection, a transition occurs to the connected but not charging state, which activates a wave generator in the EVSE device to output a 1 kHz square wave signal, but maintains the L1 and L2 line power connections in the inactive state ... the EVSE device is able to communicate the maximum allowed current that the electric vehicle may draw while charging by varying the duty cycle of the square wave signal” ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 7, Hooker in view of Hartnagel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first frequency is 1000Hz (Hooker: “a transition occurs to the connected but not charging state, which activates a wave generator in the EVSE device to output a 1 kHz square wave signal” ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 8, Hooker in view of Hartnagel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the current limit is an AC current limit (Hooker: “the EVSE may set the duty cycle of the CP signal to the current allowed current draw. In some embodiments, for example, the mapping of the oscillator duty cycle (d) to the allowed current draw may be AC” ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 9, Hooker in view of Hartnagel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the communication is established on a Control Pilot line using Power Line Communication (PLC) signals having a duty cycle beneath approximately 10% (Hooker: “The SAE J1772 standard, for example, utilizes two line power connections referred to as L1 and L2, two control connections referred to as control pilot (CP) and proximity pilot (PP), and a ground connection referred to as protective earth (PE)” ¶ 29, “In general, as long as CP signal duty cycle is in the range of allowing current draw (e.g., 10%, corresponding to a 6A draw, is generally the minimum duty cycle) ...” ¶ 55, see also ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 10, Hooker in view of Hartnagel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the duty cycle is approximately 5% (Hooker: “the mapping of the oscillator duty cycle (d) to the allowed current draw may be AC=d*0.6 (e.g. d=10→10*0.6=6A, d=50→50*0.6=30A)” ¶ 51, “the microcontroller uses an input capture measuring technique to continuously measure the duty cycle (d) at the PWM input, which indicates the allowed current draw as dictated by the EVSE device. Note that the allowed current draw may change over time” ¶ 56, see also ¶ 57, Note: Wherein the Examiner notes that Hooker discloses of a plurality of duty cycles that may fall under the claimed “approximately” of the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Hooker teaches a system for charging electric vehicles (Hooker: Fig. 3 Element 100), comprising:
at least one processor (Hooker: Fig. 3 Element 122); and
at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and comprising computer-readable instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (Hooker: “an EVSE powered apparatus such as EVSE powered apparatus 10 or EVSE powered apparatus 60 to omit any battery or alternative power source capable of driving programmable logic to interact with an EVSE device” ¶ 36, see also ¶ 43):
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 11, the claim recites analogous limitations to previously rejected claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 12, Hooker in view of Hartnagel teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the high-power connector is a North American Charging Standard (NACS) connector (Hooker: “EVSE device 12 is a Level 2 EVSE device that operates using 208-240 VAC, and both receptacle 14 and plug 16 are compatible with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1772 standard” ¶ 22).
Regarding claim 13, Hooker in view of Hartnagel teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the communication is a Control Pilot signal using Power Line Communication (PLC) (Hooker: “The SAE J1772 standard, for example, utilizes two line power connections referred to as L1 and L2, two control connections referred to as control pilot (CP) and proximity pilot (PP), and a ground connection referred to as protective earth (PE)” ¶ 29).
Regarding claim 15, Hooker in view of Hartnagel teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause a computing device to (Hooker: “an EVSE powered apparatus such as EVSE powered apparatus 10 or EVSE powered apparatus 60 to omit any battery or alternative power source capable of driving programmable logic to interact with an EVSE device” ¶ 36, see also ¶ 43):
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to previously rejected claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 14, 16, and 17, the claim recites analogous limitations to previously rejected claims 3 and 13, respectively, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooker in view of Hartnagel as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 11-14, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Kothari et al. (20230182601; hereinafter Kothari).
Regarding claim 4, Hooker in view of Hartnagel fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the signal indicates that the current limit is greater than 80 Amps.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kothari teaches wherein the signal indicates that the current limit is greater than 80 Amps (Kothari: “current and power signals communicated over the low-voltage CP power line ... have a protocol-specific power range of 0 kW to 870 kW and a current range of 0 A to 870 A” ¶ 35, see also ¶ 36, 38).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the charging system of Hooker in view of Hartnagel so that it also includes the element of the current limit range, as taught by Kothari, in order to improve charging speeds based on available capabilities (Kothari: ¶ 34, 35, 36).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooker in view of Hartnagel as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 11-14, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (20180141443; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 6, Hooker in view of Hartnagel fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein scaling the AC power comprises increasing a voltage level associated with the charging session.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein scaling the AC power comprises increasing a voltage level associated with the charging session (Lee: “the transmission signal processor 120 may convert an input voltage that is a voltage of the external power source 9 so that a certain voltage (hereinafter referred to as “output voltage”) is applied to the magnetic field generator 127. The power source 9 may be an alternating current power source and thus include commercial electrical power” ¶ 56, “the cascade buck-boost power factor correction converter may perform a voltage step-up operation by being operated the same or similar to the boost converter. Accordingly, an output voltage (Vin) that is the same as or relatively higher than the input voltage (Vgrid) may be applied to the coil 127a” ¶ 111).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the charging system of Hooker in view of Hartnagel so that it also includes the element of voltage level scaling, as taught by Lee, in order to improve charging speeds based on charging mode (Lee: ¶ 77).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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:
Regarding claim 2, Hooker in view of Hartnagel fail to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the threshold value is 19.2kW, and wherein scaling the AC power using the second frequency enables on-board EV charger to convert the AC power to DC power in excess of the threshold value.
However, Hooker discloses of utilizing a standardized Level 2 EVSE, wherein Osei-Kusi (20240010086) further elaborates on the standards of Level 2 EVSE charging as “Level 2 EV chargers can deliver power in a range of 7-19 kW, and provide significantly faster charging in comparison to Level 1 EV chargers” ¶ 38. Even so, Osei-Kusi fails to disclose of wherein scaling the AC power using the second frequency enables on-board EV charger to convert the AC power to DC power in excess of the threshold value. Osei-Kusi discloses of the standardized Level 3 EVSE chargers as providing DC power, in paragraphs 54 and 55; however, the level 3 chargers described only supply DC power and do not convert the AC power to DC in excess of the threshold value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jefferies et al. (20220396168) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of charging stations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights