DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 26 March 2026. Claims 8-14 and 16-22 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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(s) 8, 17, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frisch (US 2013/0307466) in view of Beaston (US 2017/0106764), Sun (US 2021/0213848), Farkas (US 2013/0049683), and Sun (“Classification of electric vehicle charging time series with selective clustering”; hereinafter, Li).
Regarding claim 8, Frisch discloses a power management system comprising: a server that controls charging of a plurality of batteries to successively be carried out (¶¶13, 17), wherein the server is configured to successively transmit a charging start command for each of the plurality of batteries (¶17), the plurality of batteries include a first subject battery and a second subject battery (Fig. 1), charging of the second subject battery being scheduled to be started following the first subject battery (¶¶17, 18).
Frisch does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to charging power reduction control being started in the first subject battery that is being charged, select a first replacement resource and carry out charging of the selected first replacement resource to compensate for a decrease in charging power due to the charging power reduction control, determine whether preparation for charging of the second subject battery has been completed when the charging of the first subject battery has ended, in response to determining that the preparation for charging of the second subject battery has not been completed, select a second replacement resource and carry out charging of the selected second replacement resource to compensate for a decrease in charging power due to an end of charging of the first subject battery, and in response to determining that the preparation for charging of the second subject battery has been completed, transmit the charging start command for the second subject battery. Beaston discloses these limitations (¶¶99, 105, 109). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Frisch and Beaston, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, or the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, to achieve the predictable results of using available power to charge additional resources. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Frisch discloses a server managing vehicle charging. Beaston teaches that when charging power to a vehicle is reduced as the vehicle nears end of charge, the available power is used to charge additional batteries, and additional batteries are charged until a new vehicle begins charging. The teachings of Beaston are directly applicable to Frisch in the same way, so that Frisch would similarly use available power as one vehicle’s charging session gradually ends to charge additional batteries, thus more efficiently utilizing available power to charge more resources.
If Frisch and/or Beaston is found to be unclear regarding determining that the preparation for charging of the second subject battery has or has not been completed, Sun also disclose the same (¶¶61, 88, 90). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Frisch, Beaston, and Sun, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, or the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, to achieve the predictable results of determining when a vehicle is ready for charging before initiating the charging session. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Frisch and Beaston disclose systems for managing vehicle charging. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a system would necessarily determine that a vehicle is ready for charging before charging the vehicle, as taught by Sun. The teachings of Sun are directly applicable to Frisch and Beaston the same way, so that Frisch and/or Beaston’s system would similarly verify that a vehicle is ready for charging before actually charging it.
If Frisch and/or Beaston is found to be unclear regarding the server transmitting a charging start command, Farkas discloses the same (¶31). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Frisch, Beaston, Sun, and Farkas, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of centralized charging management and control. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Frisch and Beaston disclose a charging system in which a server successively allocates charging power to vehicles. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would understand that Frisch’s server, in controlling the charging of the vehicles, would send charging start commands, as taught by Farkas. The teachings of Farkas are directly applicable to Frisch and Beaston in the same way, so that Frisch’s server would control vehicle charging according to power allocation by sending charging start commands, in order to allow centralized charging management and control.
Frisch does not appear to explicitly disclose determining, for each of the plurality of batteries, whether the charging power reduction control is carried out in a battery based on behaviors of at least one of a charging current or a charging voltage of the battery without relying on a state of charge (SOC) of the battery that is being charged. Li discloses these limitations (p. 1, col. 1, § 1; p. 2, col. 2, ¶2; p. 3, Fig. 2 and col 2, ¶2; p. 6, § 4.3). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Frisch, Beaston, Sun, Farkas, and Li, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of allowing identification of charging behavior even under charging standards that do not collect SoC data. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Frisch and Beaston disclose systems for managing vehicle charging, and Beaston teaches charging additional batteries when charging power to a vehicle is reduced as the vehicle nears end of charge. Li teaches that determining when charging power to a vehicle is reduced as the vehicle nears end of charge is done using a model trained on charging parameters rather than battery SoC. The teachings of Li are directly applicable to Frisch and Beaston in the same way, so that Frisch and Beaston would similarly identify vehicle charging power reduction near end-of-charge using a model trained on charging parameters, so that charging power reduction and end-of-charge can be detected even under charging standards that do not provide battery SoC information.
Regarding claim 17, Frisch does not appear to explicitly disclose a wattmeter that detects electric power supplied from a power grid to the first subject battery, the server is configured to determine whether the charging power reduction control has been started in the first subject battery that is being charged with electric power supplied from the power grid, based on a detection value from the wattmeter, the server is configured to select the first replacement resource and the second replacement resource among a plurality of replacement resources, and each of the plurality of replacement resources is a resource connected to the power grid, a charging schedule of which is not determined, among charging resources controllable by the server. Beaston discloses wattmeter that detects electric power supplied from a power grid to the first subject battery, the server is configured to determine whether the charging power reduction control has been started in the first subject battery that is being charged with electric power supplied from the power grid, based on a detection value from the wattmeter (¶91), the server is configured to select the first replacement resource and the second replacement resource among a plurality of replacement resources, and each of the plurality of replacement resources is a resource connected to the power grid, a charging schedule of which is not determined, among charging resources controllable by the server (Figs. 1B/1C; Fig. 2A, element 215; ¶49). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, Frisch does not appear to explicitly disclose that the plurality of replacement resources include a stationary battery configured to be chargeable from and dischargeable to the power grid and a vehicle-mounted battery, and the server is configured to preferentially select the vehicle-mounted battery over the stationary battery as the first replacement resource and the second replacement resource. Beaston (Fig. 2A; ¶63) and Sun (Fig. 3) disclose these limitations. It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Frisch, Farkas, Li, Beaston and Sun, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of charging customer vehicles before stationary batteries. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Frisch discloses a system for managing vehicle charging. As discussed above with regard to claim 8, Beaston teaches that available power is used to charge additional resources, such as stationary batteries and vehicles, while prioritizing vehicles, and Sun also teaches charging additional vehicles. The teachings of Beaston and Sun are directly applicable to Frisch in the same way, so that Frisch would similarly use available power to charge additional resources, preferring customer vehicles over stationary system batteries.
Regarding claim 20, Frisch does not appear to explicitly disclose that the server includes a storage that stores a charging schedule that indicates an order of charging of the plurality of batteries, and the server is configured to successively transmit the charging start command for each of the plurality of batteries for energy management of the power grid based on the charging schedule. Sun discloses these limitations (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Frisch, Beaston, Farkas, Li, and Sun, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of scheduling vehicle charging. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Frisch discloses a system for managing vehicle charging. Sun teaches that such a system should include a reservation system that schedules the charging of each vehicle. The teachings of Sun are directly applicable to Frisch in the same way, so that Frisch would similarly schedule successive vehicle charging according to customer reservations.
Regarding claim 21, Frisch does not appear to explicitly disclose that the server is configured to determine, for each of the plurality of batteries, whether or not end of charging of a battery is close based on whether or not the charging power reduction control has been carried out in the battery without relying on a SOC of the battery that is being charged. Li discloses these limitations (p. 1, col. 1, § 1; p. 2, col. 2, ¶2; p. 3, Fig. 2 and col 2, ¶2; p. 6, § 4.3). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 8.
Regarding claim 22, Frisch does not appear to explicitly disclose that the server is configured to obtain a trained model to learn, using artificial intelligence (AI), behaviors of at least one of a charging current or a charging voltage while the charging power reduction control is carried out, and determine whether the charging power reduction control is carried out by using the trained model. Li discloses these limitations (p. 1, col. 1, § 1; p. 2, col. 2, ¶2; p. 3, Fig. 2 and col 2, ¶2; p. 6, § 4.3). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 8.
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frisch in view of Beaston, Sun, Farkas, Li, and Kim (US 2004/0051498).
Regarding claim 9, Frisch discloses that the first subject battery is a secondary battery mounted on a first vehicle, the second subject battery is a secondary battery mounted on a second vehicle (Fig. 1), the first vehicle includes a first controller that starts prescribed first charging control of the first subject battery based on the charging start command from the server, the second vehicle includes a second controller that starts prescribed second charging control of the second subject battery based on the charging start command from the server (¶¶7, 17). As discussed with regard to claim 8, if Frisch is found to be unclear regarding the charging start command from the server, Farkas discloses the same (¶31). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 8.
Frisch does not appear to explicitly disclose when charging power for the subject battery lowers and becomes lower than a first reference value during charging of the subject battery, the server determines that the charging power reduction control has been started in the first subject battery that is being charged, and when the charging power for the first subject battery becomes lower than a second reference value smaller than the first reference value after start of the charging power reduction control, the controller determines that charging of the subject battery has ended. Kim discloses these limitations (Fig. 3; ¶¶35, 39).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Frisch, Beaston, Sun, Farkas, Li, and Kim, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of charging multiple batteries in less time by allowing a second battery to start charging when a first battery is almost charged. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Frisch discloses a server controlling successive charging of multiple batteries. Kim teaches that when charging multiple batteries, charging of the first battery is almost finished when charging power reduction control is performed, and charging of a second battery can begin. The teachings of Kim are directly applicable to Frisch in the same way, so that Frisch would similarly recognize that charging of a first battery is almost complete when charging power reduction control is performed, so that charging of a second battery can begin more quickly.
Regarding claim 10, Frisch does not appear to explicitly disclose that the server transmits the charging start command to a power feed facility to which a vehicle is connected or an energy management system that manages the power feed facility. Farkas discloses these limitations (¶31). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, Frisch discloses that the first controller carries out, in the prescribed first charging control, charging control of the first subject battery in an order of first constant power charging, and second constant power charging lower in electric power than the first constant power charging (Fig. 5), but does not appear to explicitly disclose constant voltage charging in which charging power is lowered, and that the constant voltage charging and the second constant power charging fall under the charging power reduction control. Kim discloses constant voltage charging in which charging power is lowered, and that the constant voltage charging and the second constant power charging fall under the charging power reduction control (Fig. 3; ¶39). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, Frisch does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first controller carries out, in the prescribed first charging control, charging control of the first subject battery in an order of constant current charging and constant voltage charging, and the first controller starts the charging power reduction control in making transition from the constant current charging to the constant voltage charging. Kim discloses these limitations (Fig. 3; ¶31). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, Frisch discloses that the first controller carries out, in the prescribed first charging control, charging control of the first subject battery in an order of first constant power charging and second constant power charging lower in electric power than the first constant power charging, and the first controller starts the charging power reduction control in making transition from the first constant power charging to the second constant power charging (Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frisch in view of Beaston, Sun, Farkas, Li, Kim, and Hirose (US 2012/0328945).
Regarding claim 11, Frisch discloses that the server directly transmits the charging start command to a vehicle through wireless communication (¶¶7, 17), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the server obtains charging power for a battery mounted on that vehicle from a smart meter. Kim discloses obtaining charging power for the battery from a meter (¶36). Hirose teaches that the meter is a smart meter (¶246). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Frisch, Beaston, Sun, Farkas, Li, Kim, and Hirose, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of allowing communication between a power meter and a charge control server. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Frisch discloses a server that allocates charging power to vehicles. Beaston teaches a meter for sensing the charging power, and Hirose teaches that the meter is a smart meter. The teachings of Hirose are directly applicable to Frisch and Beaston in the same way, so that Frisch would similarly use a smart meter for sensing charging power, so that the meter can communicate with the server, to allow the server to accurately allocate power.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frisch in view of Beaston, Sun, Farkas, Li, Kim, and Chai (US 6,225,776).
Regarding claim 16, Frisch does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first reference value is set within a range from a value 0.6 to 0.9 times as large as the first charging power, and the second reference value is set within a range not lower than 0 W and not higher than 500 W. Kim discloses that the second reference value is set within a range not lower than 0W and not higher than 500W (Fig. 3); motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 9. Chai discloses that the first reference value is set within a range from a value 0.6 to 0.9 times as large as the first charging power (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Frisch, Beaston, Sun, Farkas, Li, Kim, and Chai, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of allocating power in usable increments. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Frisch discloses vehicle charging. Beaston teaches that as vehicles near end of charging, charging power declines, and excess available power is used to charge additional resources. Chai teaches that power is reallocated when charging power declines to certain thresholds. The teachings of Chai are directly applicable to Frisch in the same way, so that available power is reallocated in usable increments.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frisch in view of Beaston, Sun, Farkas, Li, and Lowenthal (US 2010/0211643).
Regarding claim 18, Frisch does not appear to explicitly disclose that the server is configured to, in response to determining that the charging power reduction control has been started in the first subject battery, determine whether reserve of the power grid is insufficient, and in response to determining that reserve of the power grid is insufficient, give to a portable terminal carried by a user of an electrically powered vehicle not connected to the power grid, a notification inviting the user to connect the electrically powered vehicle to the power grid. As discussed above with regard to claim 8, Beaston discloses using available grid power to charge additional resources, including additional vehicles (¶¶99, 105, 109). Lowenthal discloses that the server is configured to give to a portable terminal carried by a user of an electrically powered vehicle not connected to the power grid, a notification inviting the user to connect the electrically powered vehicle to the power grid (Fig. 1, ¶43). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Frisch, Beaston, Sun, Farkas, Li, and Lowenthal, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of notifying users when power is available. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Frisch discloses a system for managing vehicle charging. Beaston teaches that when excess power is available, charging additional resources, and Lowenthal teaches inviting users to charge their vehicles when power is available. The teachings of Beaston and Lowenthal are directly applicable to Frisch in the same way, so that Frisch would similarly invite users to charge their vehicles using available power.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Newly-added limitations are addressed above in the new grounds of rejection. Applicant asserts that Beaston fails to teach charging power reduction control and that ¶99 of Beaston “merely discloses the temperature constraint on the batteries”. Remarks 11. The examiner disagrees. Beaston ¶99 explicitly states that as less power is used to charge the EV (as expressed in the DGP variable), the difference between DGP and the available power (DCTHP) is made available to charge the additional battery (BESS).
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 ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 ET.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
14 August 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights