DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 5-8, and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1, 6 and 14 are independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This action is final.
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 .
Independent claims 1 and 6 are amended to further specify:
operating a power system of a vehicle, configured to supply power to (i) a plurality of electrical systems on-board the vehicle and (ii) an inverter coupled to a plurality of power outlets comprising receptacles configured to receive a mating electric plug, to reserve an amount of power suppliable from the power system for the plurality of power outlets;
…, decrease power suppliable from the vehicle power system to the on-board electrical systems …
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections directed to independent claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but in moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections directed to independent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but in moot because claim 14 does not include the feature similar to “responsive to detecting an off-board load external to the vehicle connected to one of the power outlets, decrease power suppliable from the power system to the on-board electrical systems by a predicted power consumption associated with the one of the plurality of power outlets” recited in claim 1.
Prior art of record Daly is introduced to teach independent claims in view of new ground of rejection. The teachings of GIBEAU, Daly, Suen, INAGAKI, Wright, Sorenson and ABE as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by references to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Another iteration of claim analysis has been made. Referring to the corresponding sections of the claim analysis below for details.
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 14 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 14 recites “an inverter coupled to a plurality of power outlets”. The relationship between “an inverter coupled to a plurality of power outlets” and “a power system of an electrified vehicle” is not clear. For examination purpose, “an inverter coupled to a plurality of power outlets” will be construed as “an inverter powered by the power system and coupled to a plurality of power outlets”.
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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBEAU US 20180334036 A1 in view of Daly US 20170085084 A11.
Regarding claim 1, GIBEAU teaches a method comprising, by a controller (Fig. 1 [0020] controller 54):
operating a power system of a vehicle, configured to supply power to (i) a plurality of electrical systems on-board the vehicle and (ii) an inverter coupled to a plurality of power outlets comprising receptacles configured to receive a mating electric plug, and the plurality of power outlets are used for connecting off-board loads external to the vehicle (Fig. 1 [0020] [0023] vehicle power system including generator 14 and battery 48 to supply power to vehicle systems i.e. “a plurality of electrical systems on-board the vehicle” , and to a DC-AC inverter 62 coupled to offboard auxiliary loads 64 such as [0002] appliances, computer equipment, mobile homes, etc. i.e “a plurality of power outlets comprising receptacles configured to receive a mating electric plug” and “a plurality of electrical systems on-board the vehicle”), to reserve an amount of power suppliable from the power system for the plurality of power outlets (Fig. 3 [0002] [0003] [0031] an amount of power is reserved for the inverter use); GIBEAU does not explicitly further teach responsive to detecting a load connected to one of the power outlets, decrease power available to the electrical systems by a predicted power consumption associated with the one of the plurality of power outlet.
GIBEAU does not explicitly further teach responsive to detecting a load connected to one of the power outlets, decrease power suppliable from the power system to the on-board electrical systems by a predicted power consumption associated with the one of the plurality of power outlets.
Daly explicitly teaches in an analogous art that responsive to detecting a load connected to one of the power outlets, decrease power suppliable from the power system to the on-board electrical systems by a predicted power consumption associated with the one of the plurality of power outlets (Fig. 3 [0048] [0036] – [0039] the power system supplying power to system power bus i.e. “(i)” and accessory power bus i.e. “(ii)”, connection of an accessory device is detected and an initial default power level i.e. “a predicted power consumption associated with the one of the plurality of power outlets” is supplied, and the power available to the system is decreased upon the power level being supplied to the accessory power bus i.e. “decrease power available to the electrical systems by a predicted power consumption associated with the one of the plurality of power outlets”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU to incorporate the teachings of Daly, because they all directed to power management or power system, to make the method wherein responsive to detecting a load connected to one of the power outlets, decrease power suppliable from the power system to the on-board electrical systems by a predicted power consumption associated with the one of the plurality of power outlets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so that power available from a power system of a computing device is intelligently and adaptively distributed between device systems and accessories in accordance with a current usage scenario, as Daly teaches in [0015].
Regarding claim 2, Daly further teaches estimating, by the controller, the predicted power consumption as a maximum power consumption associated with the one of the plurality of power outlets ([0037] [0038] “high” power level of the port).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU to incorporate the teachings of Daly, because they all directed to power management or power system, to make the method wherein estimating, by the controller, the predicted power consumption as a maximum power consumption associated with the one of the plurality of power outlets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so that power available from a power system of a computing device is intelligently and adaptively distributed between device systems and accessories in accordance with a current usage scenario, as Daly teaches in [0015].
Regarding claim 5, Daly further teaches changing, by the controller, power available to the on-board electrical systems according to a maximum power associated with the one of the plurality of power outlets responsive to detecting a change of status to the one of the power outlets ([0037] [0038], connection of an accessory device is detected and a “high” power level is supplied, the power available to the system bus is adjusted accordingly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU to incorporate the teachings of Daly, because they all directed to power management or power system, to make the method wherein changing, by the controller, power available to the on-board electrical systems according to a maximum power associated with the one of the plurality of power outlets responsive to detecting a change of status to the one of the power outlets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so that power available from a power system of a computing device is intelligently and adaptively distributed between device systems and accessories in accordance with a current usage scenario, as Daly teaches in [0015].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBEAU in view of Daly as applied to claims 1-2 and 5 above, further in view of INAGAKI US 20170308043 A12.
Regarding claim 3, neither GIBEAU nor Daly explicitly further teaches estimating, by the controller, the predicted power consumption as a maximum power consumption value derived from historical power consumption data measured over a predetermined time interval.
INAGAKI explicitly teaches in an analogous art that estimating, by the controller, the predicted power consumption as a maximum power consumption value derived from historical power consumption data measured over a predetermined time interval (0035] load is calculated as maximum power consumption in a predetermined period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU and Daly to incorporate the teachings of INAGAKI, because they all directed to power management, to make the method wherein estimating, by the controller, the predicted power consumption as a maximum power consumption value derived from historical power consumption data measured over a predetermined time interval. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide enough power to the powered auxiliary device to avoid possible damage to the powered auxiliary device or cause operator dissatisfaction, as GIBEAU teaches in [0002].
Regarding claim 4, INAGAKI further teaches estimating, by the controller, the predicted power consumption as an average power consumption value derived from historical power consumption data measured over a predetermined interval (0035] load is calculated as average power consumption in a predetermined period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU and Daly to incorporate the teachings of INAGAKI, because they all directed to power management, to make the method wherein estimating, by the controller, the predicted power consumption as an average power consumption value derived from historical power consumption data measured over a predetermined interval. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide enough power to the powered auxiliary device to avoid possible damage to the powered auxiliary device or cause operator dissatisfaction, as GIBEAU teaches in [0002].
Claims 6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBEAU in view of Daly and Wright US 20150243151 A13.
Claim 6 recites similar limitations to that of claim 1 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Additionally, GIBEAU further teaches operating an electrified vehicle power system, configured to supply power from at least one of a traction battery and an electric machine (Fig. 1 [0002] [0016] [0018] [0019] [0023] an electrified vehicle power system with traction battery 48 and generator 14 i.e. “an electric machine” supply power to traction motor 40 and the inverter 62 for auxiliary loads).
GIBEAU does not explicitly further teaches the power outlets are 120 VAC power outlets.
Wright explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the power outlets are 120 VAC power outlets ([0061] 120/240 volt AC power outlets on the vehicle for accessories to plug in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU to incorporate the teachings of Wright, because they all directed to power management, to make the method wherein the power outlets are 120 VAC power outlets; responsive to detecting a load connected to one or more of the plurality of 120 VAC power outlets, decrease power available to the electrical systems by a power consumption associated with the one or more of the plurality of 120 VAC power outlets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide enough power to the powered auxiliary device to avoid possible damage to the powered auxiliary device or cause operator dissatisfaction, as GIBEAU teaches in [0002].
Regarding claim 8, GIBEAU further teaches limiting power available to the on-board electrical systems to reserve an amount of power for the plurality of 120 VAC power outlets (Fig. 3 [0032] the reserved minimum power allocated to the inverter is ensured by limiting the power provided to the systems).
Regarding claim 11, Daly further teaches increasing a maximum power limit of the on-board electrical systems in response to detecting no off-board loads connected to the plurality of 120 VAC power outlets ([0033] connection and disconnection of devices to accessory ports are detected, [0035] [0037] power available to the system is increased or decreased depending upon the power draw level being supplied to the accessory ports, that is when all ports are detected to be disconnected i.e. the power level of accessory ports is decreased, the power available to the system is increased, i.e. “increasing a maximum power limit of the vehicle electrical systems in response to detecting no loads connected to the plurality of 120 VAC power outlets”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU to incorporate the teachings of Daly, because they all directed to power management, to make the method wherein increasing a maximum power limit of the on-board electrical systems in response to detecting no off-board loads connected to the plurality of 120 VAC power outlets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so that power available from a power system of a computing device is intelligently and adaptively distributed between device systems and accessories in accordance with a current usage scenario, as Daly teaches in [0015].
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBEAU in view of Daly and Wright as applied to claims 6, 8 and 11 above, further in view of INAGAKI.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of GIBEAU, Daly and Wright does not explicitly further teach decreasing power available to the electrical systems by a maximum power consumption associated with the one or more of the 120VAC power outlets having a detected load.
INAGAKI explicitly teaches in an analogous art that decreasing power available to the electrical systems by a maximum power consumption associated with the one or more of the 120VAC power outlets having a detected load ([0035] load is calculated as maximum power consumption in a predetermined period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU, Daly and Wright to incorporate the teachings of INAGAKI, because they all directed to power management, to make the method wherein decreasing power available to the electrical systems by a maximum power consumption associated with the one or more of the 120VAC power outlets having a detected load. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide enough power to the powered auxiliary device to avoid possible damage to the powered auxiliary device or cause operator dissatisfaction, as GIBEAU teaches in [0002].
Regarding claim 13, INAGAKI further teaches determining the power consumption based on historical power consumption data measured over a predetermined interval ([0035] load is calculated as maximum power consumption in a predetermined period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU, Daly and Wright to incorporate the teachings of INAGAKI, because they all directed to power management, to make the method wherein determining the power consumption based on historical power consumption data measured over a predetermined interval. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide enough power to the powered auxiliary device to avoid possible damage to the powered auxiliary device or cause operator dissatisfaction, as GIBEAU teaches in [0002].
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBEAU in view of Daly and Wright as applied to claims 6, 8 and 11 above, further in view of Sorenson US 11271399 B14.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of GIBEAU, Daly and Wright does not explicitly further teach limiting power available comprises limiting power available based on a maximum power limit for one of the plurality of 120 VAC power outlets.
Sorenson explicitly teaches in an analogous art that limiting power available comprises limiting power available based on a maximum power limit for one of the plurality of 120 VAC power outlets (column 6 lines 3-4, limitation on power draw i.e. “reserved power” is based on an outlet by outlet, the power draw limit of corresponding outlet, i.e. “based on a maximum power limit for one of the plurality of 120 VAC power outlets”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU, Daly and Wright to incorporate the teachings of Sorenson, because they all directed to power management, to make the method wherein limiting power available comprises limiting power available based on a maximum power limit for one of the plurality of 120 VAC power outlets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide enough power to the powered auxiliary device to avoid possible damage to the powered auxiliary device or cause operator dissatisfaction, as GIBEAU teaches in [0002].
Regarding claim 10, Sorenson further teaches limiting power available comprises limiting power available based on a combined maximum power limit for all of the plurality of 120 VAC power outlets (column 6 lines 3-17, limitation on power draw i.e. “reserved power” is based on collective maximum draw limit for all outlets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU, Daly and Wright to incorporate the teachings of Sorenson, because they all directed to power management, to make the method wherein teaches limiting power available comprises limiting power available based on a combined maximum power limit for all of the plurality of 120 VAC power outlets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide enough power to the powered auxiliary device to avoid possible damage to the powered auxiliary device or cause operator dissatisfaction, as GIBEAU teaches in [0002].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBEAU in view of Daly and Wright as applied to claims 6, 8 and 11 above, further in view of INAGAKI and ABE WO 2024202934 A15.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of GIBEAU, Daly and Wright does not explicitly further teach the power consumption associated with the one or more 120 VAC power outlets comprises a maximum power of at least one of the 120 VAC power outlets adjusted by a power provision efficiency factor that compensates for energy conversion efficiency.
INAGAKI explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the power consumption associated with the one or more 120 VAC power outlets comprises a maximum power of at least one of the 120 VAC power outlets ([0035] load is calculated as maximum power consumption in a predetermined period).
ABE explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the maximum power is adjusted by a power provision efficiency factor that compensates for energy conversion efficiency (page 5 second paragraph, the maximum power consumption taking into consideration of power conversion efficiency of the inverter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU, Daly and Wright to incorporate the teachings of INAGAKI and ABE, because they all directed to power management, to make the method wherein the power consumption associated with the one or more 120 VAC power outlets comprises a maximum power of at least one of the 120 VAC power outlets adjusted by a power provision efficiency factor that compensates for energy conversion efficiency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide enough power to the powered auxiliary device to avoid possible damage to the powered auxiliary device or cause operator dissatisfaction, as GIBEAU teaches in [0002].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBEAU in view of Sorenson.
Regarding claim 14, GIBEAU teaches a method comprising, by a controller (Fig. 1 [0020] controller 54):
limiting power available from a power system of an electrified vehicle to a plurality of electrical systems on-board the electrified vehicle based on a reserved power available from an inverter coupled to a plurality of power outlets comprising receptacles configured to receive a mating electric plug (Fig. 1 [0002] [0016] [0018] [0019] [0020] [0023] a power system of an electrified vehicle power system with traction battery 48 and generator 14 supply power to on-board loads and the inverter 62 for off-board auxiliary loads such as [0002] appliances, computer equipment, mobile homes, etc. i.e. “a plurality of power outlets comprising receptacles configured to receive a mating electric plug”; Fig. 3 [0002] [0003] [0031] an amount of power is reserved for the inverter use and the power available to the plurality of electrical systems is limited by the reserved power).
GIBEAU does not explicitly further teach the reserved power based on a maximum power limit of at least one of the plurality of power outlets having an associated detected load.
Daly explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the reserved power based on a predicted power of at least one of the plurality of power outlets having an associated detected load ([0048] [0036] – [0039] connection of an accessory device is detected and an initial default power level i.e. “a predicted power of at least one of the plurality of power outlets” is allocated for the outlet).
Sorenson explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the predicted power is a maximum power limit for one of the plurality of power outlets (column 6 lines 3-4, limitation on power draw i.e. “reserved power” is based on an outlet by outlet, the power draw limit of corresponding outlet, i.e. “based on a maximum power limit for one of the plurality of power outlets”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU to incorporate the teachings of Daly and Sorenson, because they all directed to power management, to make the method wherein the reserved power based on a maximum power limit of at least one of the plurality of power outlets having an associated detected load. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide enough power to the powered auxiliary device to avoid possible damage to the powered auxiliary device or cause operator dissatisfaction, as GIBEAU teaches in [0002].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBEAU in view of Daly and Sorenson as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of ABE.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of GIBEAU, Daly and Sorenson does not explicitly further teach the reserved power is based on the maximum power limit and a power provision efficiency factor to compensate for energy conversion efficiency.
ABE explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the reserved power is based on the maximum power limit and a power provision efficiency factor to compensate for energy conversion efficiency (page 5 second paragraph, the maximum power taking into consideration of power conversion efficiency of the inverter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GIBEAU, Daly and Sorenson to incorporate the teachings of ABE, because they all directed to power management, to make the method wherein the reserved power is based on the maximum power limit and a power provision efficiency factor to compensate for energy conversion efficiency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide enough power to the powered auxiliary device to avoid possible damage to the powered auxiliary device or cause operator dissatisfaction, as GIBEAU teaches in [0002].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 GIBEAU and Daly are the prior arts of record
2 INAGAKI is the prior art of record
3 Wright is the prior art of record
4 Sorenson is the prior art of record
5 ABE is the prior art of record