DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on February 13, 2026, claims 1-10, 12 and 14-18 are pending. Claim 1 is amended and claims 11 and 13 were previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 of the applicant arguments, filed February 13, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103, in particular that the amendments to the claims are not disclosed by Wada, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Tyagi et al. US20140354227A1, as further detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10, 12 and 14-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 21 “of” should be cancelled from the claim.
Claims 2-10, 12 and 14-18 are objected to due to their dependency from an objected to claim
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyeki US20150298567A1 in view of Tyagi et al. US20140354227A1.
Regarding claim 1, Uyeki discloses a method (FIG. 5) of controlling power distribution to a plurality of vehicles (¶35 – sector of land includes a plurality of electric vehicles).
Uyeki discloses transmitting, by a communication interface (wireless communication network 116) of a distribution control device (¶28 – tracking server 112) to a plurality of control units (control unit 108 included in an electric vehicle 102, or under the broadest reasonable interpretation the user is also considered a controller), an indication of a charge-restriction event (¶35/¶40) each control unit of the plurality of control units physically separate from the distribution control device (FIG. 1 - the tracking server 112 is separate from the control units 108) and operable to control charging of a respective battery of a respective vehicle (¶32 – control unit 108 controls the charging of the EV 102);
by each control unit of a set of control units of the plurality of control units:
receiving the indication of the charge restriction event (FIG. 5 – 516 – send charge interruption request);
transmitting a respective indication of participation in the charge-restriction event by the respective vehicle (FIG. 5 – 526 confirm interruption of each identified EV and 528 award incentive credit when consumption is reduced) ;
while the respective battery of the respective vehicle is still connected to the power source (¶32 – EV102 is connected to a charging station when the control unit 108 determines a charging strategy), enabling charging of the battery at the first charge rate after of the charge-restriction event (¶57 – resume charging when the demand response (DR) has ended; ¶98 – reinitiate charging of the vehicle), regardless of whether the charge level is above the minimum charge threshold (this includes any charge level).
Uyeki discloses receiving, by the communication interface (116) of the distribution control device (112) from each control unit of the set of control units of the plurality of control units, a respective indication of participation in the charge-restriction event by a respective vehicle (¶89 – electric vehicles in the sector are identified – when the count is less than the number of vehicles in the charging sector, only the number of electric vehicles need to comply with the signal are signaled), where indication of participation in the charge-restriction event is indicative of a charge rate of a battery of the respective vehicle being restricted from the first charge rate outside of the charge- restriction event to a second charge rate less than the first charge rate during the charge-restriction event (¶92 and 94 – electric vehicles comply with the interruption signal and deduced consumption of electricity from the electric grid, thus creating a second charge rate less than the first charge rate during an event); and
Uyeki discloses allocating, by the at least one processor (402) of the distribution control device (112) a respective reward for a respective recipient for each vehicle for which an indication of participation in the charge-restriction event was received (¶92 and ¶94 – method 500 may include awarding an incentive/revenue/credit to the user of the electric vehicle complying with the charge interruption).
Uyeki does not explicitly teach that after receiving the indication of the charge-restriction event, while the respective battery of the respective vehicle is connected to a power source, determining that a charge level of the respective battery of the respective vehicle for the control unit is above a minimum charge threshold; and in response to determining that the charge level of the respective battery of the respective vehicle for the control unit is above the minimum charge threshold: restricting a charge rate of the respective battery from a first charge rate outside of the charge-restriction event to a second charge rate less than the first charge rate for the charge-restriction event.
Tyagi discloses that after receiving the indication of the charge-restriction event (FIG. 3 at 310 – vehicles in the DRP territory are identified) while the respective battery of the respective vehicle is connected to a power source (FIG. 3 at 300- vehicles on the grid are connected to the power source), determining that a charge level of the respective battery of the respective vehicle for the control unit is above a minimum charge threshold (FIG. 3 at 325 – vehicles that meet charge reduction criteria are identified; ¶45 – vehicles exceeding a threshold SOC (TSOC) are potential participants in an activated DRP thus at 325, when it is determined whether criteria is met, this includes the relationship to TSOC); and
in response to determining that the charge level of the respective battery of the respective vehicle for the control unit is above the minimum charge threshold (FIG. 3 at 325 – vehicle identified as meeting charge reduction criteria):
restricting a charge rate of the respective battery from a first charge rate outside of the charge-restriction event to a second charge rate less than the first charge rate for the charge-restriction event (FIG. 3 at 380/385 – charge stop/reduce instructions are issued – because it is a reduction it follows that the second charge rate is less than the first).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the charging control based on a threshold state of charge as taught by Tyagi to the charging of Uyeki in order to prevent over consumption of electricity but avoiding a burden to a user by restricting charging that would prevent use of the vehicle if below a particular charge level (¶4-5).
Regarding claim 2, Uyeki discloses that allocating, by the at least one processor, the respective reward for the respective recipient for each vehicle for which an indication of participation in the charge-restriction event was received (¶94 – method 500 may include awarding an incentive/revenue/credit to the user of the electric vehicle complying with the charge interruption) comprises: allocating funds to be provided to respective recipients for each vehicle for which an indication of participation in the charge-restriction event was received (¶94 – awarding an incentive/revenue/credit to the user of the electric vehicle complying with the charge interruption signal).
Regarding claim 3, Uyeki discloses that allocating, by the at least one processor, the respective reward for the respective recipient for each vehicle for which an indication of participation in the charge-restriction event was received (¶94 – method 500 may include awarding an incentive/revenue/credit to the user of the electric vehicle complying with the charge interruption) comprises: allocating credit to respective recipients for each vehicle for which an indication of participation in the charge-restriction event was received (¶94 – awarding an incentive/revenue/credit to the user of the electric vehicle complying with the charge interruption signal).
Regarding claim 4, Uyeki discloses transmitting, by the communication interface (116) to the plurality of control units (108), a schedule of upcoming charge-restriction events (¶75 - the strategy consists of the strategy module 410 determining a charge interruption schedule for each EV in the sector that is charging. The schedule indicates when the charging of the EV is to be interrupted and for how long.).
Regarding claim 6, Uyeki discloses receiving by the communication interface (116), from a control unit (108) of the plurality of control units, an indication of partial participation in the charge-restriction event by a respective vehicle (¶56 – approval from the user may select a minimum SOC for the EV before interrupting the charging of the EV, thus indicating a reduction, but not total interruption and partial participation).
Regarding claim 7, Uyeki discloses that the indication of partial participation in the charge-restriction event is indicative of a charge rate of a battery of the respective vehicle being restricted from the first charge rate to the second charge rate after a beginning of the charge-restriction event (¶56 – approval from the user may select a minimum SOC for the EV before interrupting the charging of the EV, thus indicating a reduction).
Regarding claim 8, Uyeki discloses that the indication of partial participation in the charge-restriction event is indicative of a charge rate of a battery of the respective vehicle being enabled at the first charge rate after a beginning of the charge-restriction event where the charge rate of the battery of the respective vehicle is restricted to second charge rate at the beginning of the charge-restriction event (¶95-96 – electric vehicle fails to comply with the initial interruption request, thus continuing to charge at the initial charge rate).
Regarding claim 14, Uyeki discloses that further comprising, by each control unit of the plurality of control units:
monitoring a charge level of a respective battery of the respective vehicle during the charge-restriction event (¶57 charging occurs in an EV where the minimum SOC has not been reached, then stops the charging once the EV is charged at least the minimum SOC during an event, thus indicating that the SOC is monitored even during the event);
if the charge level of the respective battery is below the minimum charge threshold prior to the charge restriction event and reaches the minimum charge threshold during the charge restriction event (¶57 - the EV reaches the minimum SOC):
restricting charging of the respective battery to the second charge rate for a remainder of the charge-restriction event after the charge level reaches the minimum charge threshold (¶57 - EV may charge to the minimum SOC and then stop charging for the requested time period, then resume charging at the end of the time period); and
transmitting the respective indication of participation as an indication of partial participation in the charge restriction event (¶94 - the revenue is based on the duration of the charge operation; thus the revenue is computed based on the amount of participation of the charge restriction event).Regarding claim 15, Uyeki discloses that wherein each indication of partial participation is indicative of a proportion or duration of participation in the charge-restriction event (¶57 – EV may charge to the minimum SOC and then stop charging for the requested time period, then resume charging at the end of the time period thus having a partial participation that is a proportion of the participation); and
Uyeki discloses that determining energy savings during the charge-restriction event by each control unit of the set of control units comprises, for each control unit for which an indication of partial participation is received:
determining energy savings during the charge-restriction event by restricting charge rate for the respective vehicle to the second charge rate instead of enabling charging of the battery at the first charge rate for the proportion or duration of participation in the charge-restriction event (¶94 – the revenue may be based on the duration of the charge interruption, thus is calculated for the duration the charging is stopped).
Uyeki does not explicitly teach determining energy savings during the charge-restriction event by each control unit of the set of control units.
Forbes discloses determining, by the at least one processor, possible energy savings during the charge-restriction event by each control unit of the set of control units (¶83 – assess any possible power savings as a result of the control event).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to create an operating reserve while allowing a consumer to make their energy consumption preferences known and the utility company can account for those preferences (¶24). Further the utility may provide a reward to encourage participation in the storage device management (¶105).
Regarding claim 16, Uyeki discloses that each control unit of the plurality of control units, in response to receiving an override input (¶57- charging resumed before the end time):
enabling charging of the respective battery at the first charge rate for a remainder of the charge-restriction event after the override input is received (¶57 – EV may resume charging before the end time specified); and
transmitting the respective indication of participation as an indication of partial participation in the charge restriction event (¶94 – the revenue may be based on the duration of the charge interruption, thus is calculated for the duration the charging is stopped).
Claim 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyeki US20150298567A1 in view of Tyagi et al. US20140354227A1 in further view of Ohama et al. US20170097622A1.
Regarding claim 9, Uyeki does not explicitly disclose allocating, by the at least one processor, a partial reward for a recipient associated with the vehicle for which an indication of partial participation in the charge-restriction event was received.
Ohama discloses allocating, by the at least one processor, a partial reward for a recipient associated with the vehicle for which an indication of partial participation in the charge-restriction event was received (¶93 – calculate the adjustment amount allocated to each customer terminal and determining a priority of each customer based on a product of a unit price with incentive and adjustment amount; ¶152 – customer executing the demand adjustment for a shorter period is usually given a smaller incentive).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve giving a smaller incentive since the customer executes the demand adjustment for a shorter time (Oarhama; ¶152).
Regarding claim 10, Uyeki does not explicitly disclose that the partial reward is based on a proportion of the charge-restriction event for which the charge rate of the vehicle was restricted to the second charge rate.
Ohama discloses the partial reward is based on a proportion of the charge-restriction event for which the charge rate of the vehicle was restricted to the second charge rate (¶93 – calculate the adjustment amount allocated to each customer terminal and determining a priority of each customer based on a product of a unit price with incentive and adjustment amount; ¶152 – customer executing the demand adjustment for a shorter period, or at a second charge rate, is usually given a smaller incentive).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve giving a smaller incentive since the customer executes the demand adjustment for a shorter time (Ohama; ¶152).
Claims 5, 12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyeki US20150298567A1 in view of Tyagi et al. US20140354227A1 and further in view of Forbes US20110172837A1
Regarding claim 5, Uyeki is silent as to transmitting, by the communication interface to a control unit of the plurality of control units, an indication of participation in past charge events by a vehicle corresponding to the control unit.
Forbes discloses transmitting, by the communication interface to a control unit of the plurality of control units, an indication of participation in past charge events by a vehicle corresponding to the control unit (¶134 – having accurate historical knowledge as to how power consuming devices may be expected to perform at various times and having knowledge of how much stored power is available for the control – thus, the indication of past participation is used to determine the projected energy savings).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to create an operating reserve while allowing a consumer to make their energy consumption preferences known and the utility company can account for those preferences (¶24). Further the utility may provide a reward to encourage participation in the storage device management (¶105).
Regarding claim 12, Uyeki discloses that wherein determining the energy savings for the respective vehicle comprises:
determining a first energy quantity to charge the respective battery of the respective vehicle at the first rate for the charge-restriction event (¶91 - the charging amount before the charge interruption request within a specified period);
determining a second energy quantity to charge the respective battery of the respective vehicle at the second rate for the charge-restriction event (¶92 - the charge interruption approved by the user) ; and
determining the energy savings as a difference between the first energy quantity and the second energy quantity (a person of ordinary skill would understand that the difference between the energy quantities is the amount of energy saved, as this is a well-understood principle).
Uyeki does not explicitly teach the possible energy savings.
Forbes discloses assessing any possible power savings as a result of the control event (¶83).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to create an operating reserve while allowing a consumer to make their energy consumption preferences known and the utility company can account for those preferences (¶24). Further the utility may provide a reward to encourage participation in the storage device management (¶105).
Regarding claim 17, Uyeki discloses that each indication of partial participation is indicative of a proportion or duration of participation in the charge-restriction event (¶57 – EV may charge to the minimum SOC and then stop charging for the requested time period, then resume charging at the end of the time period thus having a partial participation that is a proportion of the participation); and
Uyeki does not explicitly teach determining possible energy savings during the charge-restriction event by each control unit of the set of control units comprises, for each control unit for which an indication of partial participation is received: determining possible energy savings during the charge-restriction event by restricting charge rate for the respective vehicle to the second charge rate instead of enabling charging of the battery at the first charge rate.
Forbes discloses that determining possible energy savings during the charge-restriction event by each control unit of the set of control units (¶83 – assess any possible power savings as a result of the possible power savings) comprises, for each control unit for which an indication of partial participation is received:
determining possible energy savings during the charge-restriction event (¶83 – assess any possible power savings as a result of the possible power savings) by restricting charge rate for the respective vehicle to the second charge rate instead of enabling charging of the battery at the first charge rate (¶124 - operating reserve request cannot be satisfied, the central controller may inform the utility and/or not respond to the request).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to create an operating reserve while allowing a consumer to make their energy consumption preferences known and the utility company can account for those preferences (¶24). Further the utility may provide a reward to encourage participation in the storage device management (¶105).
Regarding claim 18. Uyeki discloses allocating the respective reward for the respective recipient for each vehicle for which an indication of participation in the charge-restriction event was received (¶92 and 94 – method 500 may include awarding an incentive/revenue/credit to the user of the electric vehicle complying with the charge interruption.
Uyeki does not explicitly teach determining, by the at least one processor of the distribution control device, possible energy savings during the charge- restriction event by each control unit of the set of control units restricting charge rate for the respective vehicle to the second charge rate instead of enabling charging of the battery at the first charge rate, the possible energy savings determined as a difference between the first charge rate and the second charge rate over the charge-restriction event regardless of whether the respective vehicle charges at the first charge rate outside of the charge restriction event and regardless of whether the respective vehicle charges at the second charge rate over the charge restriction event, allocating the respective reward based on the determined possible energy savings for the respective vehicle as the difference between the first charge rate and the second charge rate over the charge-restriction event, even if an actual charge rate for the respective vehicle during the charge-restriction event is less than the second charge rate.
Forbes discloses determining, by the at least one processor of the distribution control device, possible energy savings during the charge- restriction event by each control unit of the set of control units (¶98 – the ALD (active load director) 100 determines projected energy savings for each service point) restricting charge rate for the respective vehicle to the second charge rate instead of enabling charging of the battery at the first charge rate (¶92-93 devices participate in a control event, thus at a reduced rate), the possible energy savings determined as a difference between the first charge rate and the second charge rate over the charge-restriction event (¶83 – power savings application calculates the difference between the expected amount of power consumed during normal operation and the expected amount of power consumed during the control event) regardless of whether the respective vehicle charges at the first charge rate outside of the charge restriction event and regardless of whether the respective vehicle charges at the second charge rate over the charge restriction event (¶83 – the expected amount of power during normal operation and the expected power consumed during a control event are determined, thus, regardless of whether the device charges at a first or second rate, the power consumption values are determined; FIG. 12; ¶86-91 – 1208 is the actual energy usage, 1204 is the projected energy if control events are used, 1206 is the projected energy usage when control events are not used),
allocating the respective reward based on the determined possible energy savings for the respective vehicle (¶105 – customer may be provided a reward to encourage participation in storage device management and because it is provided based on participation, it is determined to be provided as a result of having agreed to save energy and participate in the restriction), as the difference between the first charge rate and the second charge rate over the charge-restriction event (¶83 – power savings application calculates the difference between the expected amount of power consumed during normal operation and the expected amount of power consumed during the control event; if there has been participation in the storage device management system then there is a charge restriction participation and an energy savings. Thus, possibility of a reward is based upon participation in the event and potential savings that storage device management provides), even if an actual charge rate for the respective vehicle during the charge-restriction event is less than the second charge rate (¶105 — the reward is based on participation and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, participation includes charging rates that are less than the expected amount of power consumed during the control event).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to create an operating reserve while allowing a consumer to make their energy consumption preferences known and the utility company can account for those preferences (¶24). Further the utility may provide a reward to encourage participation in the storage device management (¶105).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakano et al. US20180147950A1 discloses interrupting charging of a vehicle to charge another vehicle, thus, restricting the charging.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM..
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 on 571-272-2312. 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights