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 .
Response to Arguments
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claim 16, 17, and 22-37 considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below: In light of a new search performed by the Information disclosure statement filed 8/20/25, new rejections for the claims were provided. Therefore, the allowance is currently withdrawn.
Rejections based on the newly cited reference follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 16, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bouman (USPGPN 20130187602)
Independent Claim 16, Bouman discloses a method (¶’s [02, 06-12, 15-24, 32]) in a first dispenser (1 & 1a-1d, see Figs. 1a-4), comprising:
receiving a first request to initiate charging service for charging a first electric vehicle (23a-23d) through the first dispenser (controller 4 in each 1 & 1a-1d, ¶’s [15-17]);
determining a first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle (¶[16]),
wherein determining the first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle includes determining an availability status of each of a plurality of power modules ([10, 3, 11, 15], ¶’s [11, 16]),
wherein a first portion of the plurality of power modules is located in the first dispenser and a second portion of the plurality of power modules is located in a second dispenser (citations above, structure of Fig. 1a present in 1/1a-1d each of Figs. 1b-4);
determining whether the determined first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle is enough to meet a requested or determined amount of power draw of the first electric vehicle (¶’s [11, 16]);
responsive to determining that the determined first amount of power is not enough to meet the requested or determined amount of power draw of the first electric vehicle (¶’s [11, 16]), and responsive to determining that there is at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available, requesting allocation of that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available (citations above, see esp. ¶’s [11, 16]); and
commencing charging service for charging the first electric vehicle after the at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available is allocated to the first dispenser (citations above, see esp. ¶’s [11, 16]).
Dependent Claim 22, Bouman discloses determining the availability status of each of the plurality of power modules is performed locally at the first dispenser (¶’s [15-17, 21])
Dependent Claim 23, Bouman discloses determining the availability status of each of the plurality of power modules includes requesting the availability status of the second portion of the plurality of power modules from the second dispenser (¶’s [11, 16]).
Dependent Claim 25, Bouman discloses at least one of the plurality of power modules is located on the second dispenser, and wherein requesting allocation of that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available causes the second dispenser to cause that at least one of the plurality of power modules to connect to a power bus that connects to an output terminal for charging the first electric vehicle (¶’s [11, 16]).
Claims 16, 17, 22-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohkuma et al (USPGPN 20170182900)
Independent Claim 16, Ohkuma discloses a method (Figs. 2-5) in a first dispenser (any one of 11-1n, see Figs. [1, 2, & 6]), comprising:
receiving a first request to initiate charging service for charging a first electric vehicle through the first dispenser (top charge request in Fig. 2, see further abstract, ¶’s [35, 41, 49, 50, 52, 64, 68, 71]);
determining a first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle, wherein determining the first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle includes determining an availability status of each of a plurality of power modules (see at least Tables 1-4, s2 of Fig. 2, Figs. 3-5),
wherein a first portion of the plurality of power modules is located in the first dispenser and a second portion of the plurality of power modules is located in a second dispenser (see power modules 21 for each of 11-1n, see further ¶’s [33-35, 41-43, 45, 51,52,62,73, esp. 33-35]);
determining whether the determined first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle is enough to meet a requested or determined amount of power draw of the first electric vehicle (Fig. 5 calculation of shortfall power, see further ¶’s [50-52, 57-62, 69, 72]);
responsive to determining that the determined first amount of power is not enough to meet the requested or determined amount of power draw of the first electric vehicle, and responsive to determining that there is at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available, requesting allocation of that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available (see at least s25-s29 of Fig. 5, s2-s4 of Fig. 2, Fig. 3, ¶’s [31-33, 41, 77, 79]); and
commencing charging service for charging the first electric vehicle after the at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available is allocated to the first dispenser (see at least ¶’s [41-43], start response of Fig. 2).
Independent Claim 26, Ohkuma discloses a first dispenser (any one of 11-1n, see Figs. [1, 2, & 6]) for charging an electric vehicle (abstract, see Fig. 2), comprising:
a first set of one or more power modules, wherein each of the first set of one or more power modules is capable of supplying an amount of power for charging the electric vehicle (see power modules 21 for each of 11-1n, see further ¶’s [33-35, 41-43, 45, 51,52,62,73, esp. 33-35]);
a processor (22, see ¶’s [33, 35-38, 40-46, 50-57, 59, 60, 78]); and
a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (23, ¶’s [33, 36, 45, 48, 51-55, 59, 78]) that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Figs. 2-5) comprising:
receiving a first request to initiate charging service for charging a first electric vehicle through the first dispenser (top charge request in Fig. 2, see further abstract, ¶’s [35, 41, 49, 50, 52, 64, 68, 71]),
determining a first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle (see at least Tables 1-4, s2 of Fig. 2, Figs. 3-5),
wherein determining the first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle includes determining an availability status of each of a plurality of power modules (see power modules 21 for each of 11-1n, see further ¶’s [33-35, 41-43, 45, 51,52,62,73, esp. 33-35]),
determining whether the determined first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle is enough to meet a requested or determined amount of power draw of the first electric vehicle (Fig. 5 calculation of shortfall power, see further ¶’s [50-52, 57-62, 69, 72]),
responsive to determining that the determined first amount of power is not enough to meet the requested or determined amount of power draw of the first electric vehicle, and responsive to determining that there is at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available, requesting allocation of that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available (see at least s25-s29 of Fig. 5, s2-s4 of Fig. 2, Fig. 3, ¶’s [31-33, 41, 77, 79]), and
commencing charging service for charging the first electric vehicle after the at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available is allocated to the first dispenser (see at least ¶’s [41-43], start response of Fig. 2).
Independent Claim 32, Ohkuma discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (23, ¶’s [33, 36, 45, 48, 51-55, 59, 78]) that provides instructions that, when executed by a processor (22, see ¶’s [33, 35-38, 40-46, 50-57, 59, 60, 78]) on a first dispenser (any one of 11-1n, see Figs. [1, 2, & 6]), cause the processor to perform operations (Figs. 2-5) comprising:
receiving a first request to initiate charging service for charging a first electric vehicle through the first dispenser (top charge request in Fig. 2, see further abstract, ¶’s [35, 41, 49, 50, 52, 64, 68, 71]);
determining a first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle, wherein determining the first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle includes determining an availability status of each of a plurality of power modules (see at least Tables 1-4, s2 of Fig. 2, Figs. 3-5),
wherein a first portion of the plurality of power modules is located in the first dispenser and a second portion of the plurality of power modules is located in a second dispenser (see power modules 21 for each of 11-1n, see further ¶’s [33-35, 41-43, 45, 51,52,62,73, esp. 33-35]);
determining whether the determined first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle is enough to meet a requested or determined amount of power draw of the first electric vehicle (Fig. 5 calculation of shortfall power, see further ¶’s [50-52, 57-62, 69, 72]);
responsive to determining that the determined first amount of power is not enough to meet the requested or determined amount of power draw of the first electric vehicle, and responsive to determining that there is at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available, requesting allocation of that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available (see at least s25-s29 of Fig. 5, s2-s4 of Fig. 2, Fig. 3, ¶’s [31-33, 41, 77, 79]); and
commencing charging service for charging the first electric vehicle after the at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available is allocated to the first dispenser (see at least ¶’s [41-43], start response of Fig. 2).
Dependent Claims 17, 27, and 33, Ohkuma discloses responsive to charging service for charging the first electric vehicle ending, requesting the at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available to be deallocated (¶’s [38, 41, esp. 38] states that the switch connecting to the bus 25 is only closed when power is requested, while when power is no longer requested [“in cases other than the above”], the switch is opened/power-module-deallocated, see further ¶[51] and s23 of Fig. 5).
Dependent Claims 22, 28, and 34, Ohkuma discloses determining the availability status of each of the plurality of power modules is performed locally at the first dispenser (S1, ¶’s [40, 44-48], describes that each controller determine the availability of the other chargers).
Dependent Claims 23, 29, and 35, Ohkuma discloses determining the availability status of each of the plurality of power modules includes requesting the availability status of the second portion of the plurality of power modules from the second dispenser (S1, ¶’s [35, 40, 44-48], describes that each controller determine the availability of the other chargers, S2, requesting assistance and getting approval means requesting availability status, see Fig. 2).
Dependent Claims 24, 30, and 36, Ohkuma discloses requesting allocation of that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available includes selecting that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available that has a lowest operating time (¶[55], Fig. 5).
Dependent Claims 25, 31, and 37, Ohkuma discloses that at least one of the plurality of power modules is located on the second dispenser, and wherein requesting allocation of that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available causes the second dispenser to cause that at least one of the plurality of power modules to connect to a power bus (30, see ¶’s [31, 33, 34, 38]) that connects to an output terminal for charging the first electric vehicle (see at least ¶’s [41-43], start response of Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bouman (USPGPN 20130187602)
Independent Claim 26, Bouman discloses a first dispenser (1 & 1a-1d, see Figs. 1a-4) for charging (¶’s [02, 06-12, 15-24, 32]) an electric vehicle (23a-23d), comprising:
a first set of one or more power modules ([10, 3, 11, 15] see Fig. 1a, corresponds to each 1 & 1a-1d of Figs. 1b-4), wherein each of the first set of one or more power modules is capable of supplying an amount of power for charging the electric vehicle;
a processor (4 in each 1 & 1a-1d of Figs. 1b-4); and
a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a microprocessor ¶’s [19, 31] often inherently includes a memory, and/or in order to perform the operations described by Bouman, a memory/readable-storage-medium would be understood to be inherently required, or in the alternative, if the applicant believes a memory would not be inherent to a microprocessor control system, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the inclusion of a memory device would allow for the control system to reliably and independently provide the process as cited in this section, since without an onboard memory the operations would have to manually be performed by a human, or controlled by the outside [where control by the outside is only an option, not required]) that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (¶’s [02, 06-12, 15-24, 32]) comprising:
receiving a first request to initiate charging service for charging a first electric vehicle through the first dispenser (¶’s [15-17]),
determining a first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle (¶[16]),
wherein determining the first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle includes determining an availability status of each of a plurality of power modules (¶’s [11, 16] including the first set of one or more power modules and a second set of one or more power modules located in a second dispenser that is remote to the first dispenser (citations above, structure of Fig. 1a present in 1/1a-1d each of Figs. 1b-4),
determining whether the determined first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle is enough to meet a requested or determined amount of power draw of the first electric vehicle (¶’s [11, 16]),
responsive to determining that the determined first amount of power is not enough to meet the requested or determined amount of power draw of the first electric vehicle (¶’s [11, 16]), and responsive to determining that there is at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available, requesting allocation of that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available (citations above, see esp. ¶’s [11, 16]), and
commencing charging service for charging the first electric vehicle after the at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available is allocated to the first dispenser (citations above, see esp. ¶’s [11, 16]).
Independent Claim 32, Bouman discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a microprocessor ¶’s [19, 31] often inherently includes a memory, and/or in order to perform the operations described by Bouman, a memory/readable-storage-medium would be understood to be inherently required, or in the alternative, if the applicant believes a memory would not be inherent to a microprocessor control system, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the inclusion of a memory device would allow for the control system to reliably and independently provide the process as cited in this section, since without an onboard memory the operations would have to manually be performed by a human, or controlled by the outside [where control by the outside is only an option, not required]) that provides instructions that, when executed by a processor (4, ¶’s [19, 31]) on a first dispenser (1 & 1a-1d, see Figs. 1a-4), cause the processor to perform operations (¶’s [02, 06-12, 15-24, 32]) comprising:
receiving a first request to initiate charging service for charging a first electric vehicle (23a-23d) through the first dispenser (controller 4 in each 1 & 1a-1d, ¶’s [15-17]);
determining a first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle (¶[16]),
wherein determining the first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle includes determining an availability status of each of a plurality of power modules ([10, 3, 11, 15], ¶’s [11, 16]),
wherein a first portion of the plurality of power modules is located in the first dispenser and a second portion of the plurality of power modules is located in a second dispenser (citations above, structure of Fig. 1a present in 1/1a-1d each of Figs. 1b-4);
determining whether the determined first amount of power that is available for the charging service for charging the first electric vehicle is enough to meet a requested or determined amount of power draw of the first electric vehicle (¶’s [11, 16]);
responsive to determining that the determined first amount of power is not enough to meet the requested or determined amount of power draw of the first electric vehicle (¶’s [11, 16]), and responsive to determining that there is at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available, requesting allocation of that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available (citations above, see esp. ¶’s [11, 16]); and
commencing charging service for charging the first electric vehicle after the at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available is allocated to the first dispenser (citations above, see esp. ¶’s [11, 16]).
Dependent Claims 28 and 34, Bouman discloses determining the availability status of each of the plurality of power modules is performed locally at the first dispenser (¶’s [15-17,21])
Dependent Claims 29 and 35, Bouman discloses determining the availability status of each of the plurality of power modules includes requesting the availability status of the second portion of the plurality of power modules from the second dispenser (¶’s [11, 16]).
Dependent Claims 31 and 37, Bouman discloses at least one of the plurality of power modules is located on the second dispenser, and wherein requesting allocation of that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available causes the second dispenser to cause that at least one of the plurality of power modules to connect to a power bus that connects to an output terminal for charging the first electric vehicle (¶’s [11, 16]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 17, 24, 27, 30, 33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouman (USPGPN 20130187602) in view of Ohkuma et al (USPGPN 20170182900)
Dependent Claims 17, 27, and 33, Bouman’s first dispenser is cable of doing responsive to charging service for charging the first electric vehicle ending, requesting the at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available to be deallocated.
Bouman fails to explicitly teach responsive to charging service for charging the first electric vehicle ending, requesting the at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available to be deallocated.
Ohkuma teaches responsive to charging service for charging the first electric vehicle ending, requesting the at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available to be deallocated (¶’s [38, 41, esp. 38] states that the switch connecting to the bus 25 is only closed when power is requested, while when power is no longer requested [“in cases other than the above”], the switch is opened/power-module-deallocated, see further ¶[51] and s23 of Fig. 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that disconnecting the circuits when not necessary serves to improve the efficiency of the system since power is not wasted when not needed and further that new vehicle requirements can be addressed promptly without influence over previous vehicle requirements. Furthermore, safety would be understood to be improved since if a fault occurs in one of the dispensers, it is isolated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bouman with Ohkuma to provide improved efficiency, safety, and [reaction] speed.
Dependent Claims 24, 30, and 36, Bouman is silent to requesting allocation of that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available includes selecting that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available that has a lowest operating time.
Ohkuma teaches requesting allocation of that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available includes selecting that at least one of the plurality of power modules that is available that has a lowest operating time (¶[55], Fig. 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that the use of equipment for longer periods serves to increase wear [i.e. reduce longevity] and increase the chances for a fault event to occur. Therefore, reducing the use would serve to improve longevity and safety.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bouman with Ohkuma to provide improved longevity and safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859