DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05-06-2026 has been entered.
The official correspondence below is a first action non-final on an RCE.
Response to Amendment
Claims 3 and 5-6 were previously cancelled.
Claim 1 has been amended.
There are no new claims.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7-12 are currently pending.
Amendments received 02-06-2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall (US 20130184901 A1) in view of Elliott (US 10814999 B2, and in further view of Kobayashi (US 20190013700 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Wall discloses, a plurality of sub-power managers that control respective output power of a plurality of subsystems that actualize functions of the vehicle (Wall: [FIG. 2(101)]; [0072]); and an integrated power manager that performs integrated control of output power in the overall vehicle by exchanging information with the plurality of sub-power managers (Wall: [FIG. 2(101)]; [0072]), wherein: the plurality of subsystems respectively corresponds to a plurality of domains that each include one or more apparatuses that are mounted in the vehicle and a storage unit that performs input and output of energy of a type that is prescribed in advance to and from the one or more apparatuses (Wall: [0031]); the information that is exchanged between the plurality of sub-power managers and the integrated power manager is information that enables calculation of a physical quantity that is expressed by at least either of a power dimension and an energy dimension (Wall: [FIG. 2 (101), 3 (communication between components), 4(101b)]; [0072]; ¶'s [0049-0054] discloses relationship between power management components), information that is transmitted from the plurality of sub-power managers to the integrated power manager includes a requested power value of the subsystem and a suppliable-power value from at least one sub-power manager that supplies energy among the plurality of sub-power managers (Wall: [FIG. 3(101a)]; [0049]; [0052]); and the integrated power manager determines the input/output-power limit value of each subsystem by performing arbitration of the requested power values that are received from the sub-power managers (Wall: [FIG. 3(101b: plan power, control power, manage power)]; [0050]).
In this case, "arbitration" is not interpreted as settling a dispute, but a decision making or planning process due to surrounding claim language and the specification being devoid of a dispute.
Wall does not explicitly recite the terminology "plurality". However, Wall discloses a method that is parallel in anatomy, service, and result. Further, a duplication of essential steps or parts is well within the scope of customary practices for one of ordinary skill.
Wall does not explicitly power distribution based upon priorities.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Elliott discloses, information that is transmitted from the integrated power manger to the plurality of sub-power managers includes an input/output-power limit value of the subsystem (Elliott: (Col. 9, Ln. 50-63)); [FIG. 4]; [FIG. 5]); based on subsystem priority levels that are priority levels of the plurality of subsystems (Elliott: (Col. 8, Ln. 62-67); [FIG. 4]; [FIG. 5]); the plurality of sub-power managers each transmit, to the integrated power manager, division information that is information for dividing the requested power value into a plurality of sub-requested power values (Elliott: [FIG. 4(controller and respective subcomponents of the SSPC (solid state power controller))]; [FIG. 5]; determining priorities when power demand exceeds the supply capabilities are described herein (Col. 13, Ln. 27-28); all of the “bids” received from the set of SSPCs 234, 236, 238, the present status and capability characteristics (or a prediction or estimation thereof) of the power source, the present status and capability characteristics (or a prediction or estimation thereof) of the power converter 32, or predicted demand changes arising from switch control commands, such as from the system controller (Col. 12, Ln. 1-7); On a periodic basis each SSPC 234, 236, 238 can send a ‘bid’ or energy demand request for an amount or quantity of electrical energy to fulfil the expected energy demand of its respective electrical load 20 for the next time period to at least one of the controller modules 160, 166 (Col. 12, Ln. 30-35)) and the integrated power manager divides the requested power values that are received from the plurality of sub-power managers into the plurality of sub-requested power values using the division information (Elliott: (Col. 10, Ln. 10-27); (Col. 13, Ln. 27-28); (Col. 8, Ln. 66-67); (Col. 9, Ln. 8-10)), and sets the sub-requested power values after division as subjects of arbitration (Elliott: (Col. 10, Ln. 52-56); (Col. 13, Ln. 27-28); (Col. 13, Ln. 19-28)); the plurality of sub-requested power values (Elliott: the prioritization can include a phasing-in or a temporary alteration in power demanded, in conjunction with a subset of the SSPCs 134, 136, 138, such that in the event two or more SSPCs 134, 136, 138 ‘request’ a-larger or higher, short-time, alteration of power demanded simultaneously, or in an overlapping time relationship (Col. 10, Ln. 17-19)) for each one of the plurality of subsystems (Elliott: the prioritization can include a phasing-in or a temporary alteration in power demanded, in conjunction with a subset of the SSPCs 134, 136, 138, such that in the event two or more SSPCs 134, 136, 138 ‘request’ a-larger or higher, short-time, alteration of power demanded simultaneously, or in an overlapping time relationship (Col. 10, Ln. 17-19)) include a first sub-requested power value that has a higher power priority level (Elliott: a higher-prioritized electrical load 20, such as the motor 42, can receive a higher maximum current value or high transient power demand at the expense of lowering or shedding another lower-prioritized electrical load 20 (Col. 10, Ln. 12-16); (Col. 13, Ln. 10-28) describes that the method of power management runs optimally by lowering power to some so that the can have the minimum required amount of power to perform their duty, and keeping priority items at an optimal level) and a second sub-requested power value that has a lower power priority level (Elliott: the electrical load 20 having a power input capacitor can be de-prioritized by way of the control schema described herein, as long as the power supply is at least a minimal threshold value to allow or enable the load 20 to operate satisfactorily (Col. 10, Ln. 52-56); (Col. 13, Ln. 10-28) describes that the method of power management runs optimally by lowering power to some so that the can have the minimum required amount of power to perform their duty, and keeping priority items at an optimal level); independent subsystem priority levels are respectively set for the plurality of first sub-requested power values of the plurality of subsystems (Elliott: control schema aspects related to the flight phase or environmental operating characteristic of the aircraft, which may affect the energizing of electrical loads 20 or prioritization of such (Col. 8, Ln. 64-67); see (Col. 9, Ln. 64 - Col. 10, Ln. 1-27) for altering priorities based upon circumstances) and the plurality of second sub-requested power values of the plurality of subsystems (Elliott: control schema aspects related to the flight phase or environmental operating characteristic of the aircraft, which may affect the energizing of electrical loads 20 or prioritization of such (Col. 8, Ln. 64-67); see (Col. 9, Ln. 64 - Col. 10, Ln. 1-27) for altering priorities based upon circumstances), and the plurality of sub-requested power values include a minimum required power value of the corresponding subsystem (Elliott: energizing an electrical load 20 having a power input capacitor can result in a high transient power demand, but can operate satisfactorily if the current flow during power up is limited (e.g. resulting in a longer, but operational power up period). In one non-limiting example, the power input capacitor can be included as a portion of the RC load 40. In this instance, the electrical load 20 having a power input capacitor can be de-prioritized by way of the control schema described herein, as long as the power supply is at least a minimal threshold value to allow or enable the load 20 to operate satisfactorily (Col. 10, Ln. 52-56); The controller module 160 would be responsible for reviewing, analyzing, or the like, the “bids” or energy demands from the set of the SSPCs 234, 236, 238 and sending each SSPC 234, 236, 238 a personalized “contract” or command instruction detailing constraints including an energy “budget” for the forthcoming time period. The respective SSPC 234, 236, 238 would then be responsible for attempting to meet its electrical load 20 power demands in accordance with the command instruction or control input 170. As used herein, “meeting” the electrical load 20 power demands in accordance with the control input 170 can include controllably limiting, by at least one of the SSPC 234, 236, 238 or controller module 280 thereof, the maximum quantity of energy delivered, in accordance with the respective energy budget for the time period (Col. 12, Ln. 62 - Col. 13, Ln. 9); (Col. 14, Ln. 63-67)), for the benefit of limiting the maximum quantity of energy delivered in accordance with the respective energy budget.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by Wall to include thresholds and system priorities taught by Elliott. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to limit the maximum quantity of energy delivered in accordance with the respective energy budget.
Wall in view of Elliott disclose, the plurality of sub-power managers each transmit, to the integrated power manager, division information that is information for dividing the requested power value into a plurality of sub-requested power values (Elliott: [FIG. 4(controller and respective subcomponents of the SSPC (solid state power controller))]; [FIG. 5]; determining priorities when power demand exceeds the supply capabilities are described herein (Col. 13, Ln. 27-28); all of the “bids” received from the set of SSPCs 234, 236, 238, the present status and capability characteristics (or a prediction or estimation thereof) of the power source, the present status and capability characteristics (or a prediction or estimation thereof) of the power converter 32, or predicted demand changes arising from switch control commands, such as from the system controller (Col. 12, Ln. 1-7); On a periodic basis each SSPC 234, 236, 238 can send a ‘bid’ or energy demand request for an amount or quantity of electrical energy to fulfil the expected energy demand of its respective electrical load 20 for the next time period to at least one of the controller modules 160, 166 (Col. 12, Ln. 30-35)). Wall in view of Elliott do not explicitly disclose receiving a priority message with a request.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kobayashi discloses, “[0030] When authentication by comparison has succeeded, the power transmission control unit 12 determines that the power receiving unit 20 as a transmission source of the authentication information is a rightful power transmission target and transmits a priority information request to the power receiving unit 20. The power transmission control unit 12 receives a device ID, priority information”, for the benefit of updating priority dynamically to updated total transmitted power to the power receiving units.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power management method disclosed by a modified Wall to include receiving a priority message taught by Kobayashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to update priority dynamically to updated total transmitted power to the power receiving units.
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Wall, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Wall also discloses, the integrated power manager generates an energy plan that is a plan for generation and use of energy for at least one subsystem among the subsystems and calculates the requested power value for the at least one subsystem based on the energy plan (Wall: [FIG. 3(101b: plan power, control power, manage power)]; [0050]), and sets the requested power value that is calculated based on the energy plan as a subject of arbitration, for the at least one subsystem, instead of the requested power value that is received from the sub-power manager of the subsystem (Wall: [FIG. 3(101b: plan power, control power, manage power)]; [0050]; [0058]).
As stated above, in this case, "arbitration" is not interpreted as settling a dispute, but a decision making or planning process due to surrounding claim language and the specification being devoid of a dispute.
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Wall, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Elliott also discloses, the plurality of sub-power managers each transmit, to the integrated power manager, a plurality of sub-requested power values to which differing power priority levels are set as the requested power value; and the integrated power manager sets the plurality of sub-requested power values that are received from the plurality of sub power managers as subjects of arbitration (Elliott: [FIG. 5]; (Col. 10, Ln. 10-27); (Col. 13, Ln. 27-28)).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Wall, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Elliott also discloses, a priority-level adjusting unit that adjusts the subsystem priority levels (Elliott: (Col. 11, Ln. 9-27)).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Wall, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Elliott also discloses, the first sub-requested power value represents a minimum power value (Elliott: the electrical load 20 having a power input capacitor can be de-prioritized by way of the control schema described herein, as long as the power supply is at least a minimal threshold value to allow or enable the load 20 to operate satisfactorily (Col. 10, Ln. 52-56); (Col. 13, Ln. 10-28) describes that the method of power management runs optimally by lowering power to some so that the can have the minimum required amount of power to perform their duty, and keeping priority items at an optimal level), and the second sub-requested power value represents a preferred power value (Elliott: a higher-prioritized electrical load 20, such as the motor 42, can receive a higher maximum current value or high transient power demand at the expense of lowering or shedding another lower-prioritized electrical load 20 (Col. 10, Ln. 12-16); (Col. 13, Ln. 10-28) describes that the method of power management runs optimally by lowering power to some so that the can have the minimum required amount of power to perform their duty, and keeping priority items at an optimal level).
Elliott does not explicitly recite the terminology "first request is a minimum amount". However, Elliott does disclose an input requiring a minimum supply, and if the input is de-prioritized, continuing to supply a minimum amount of power to continue to operate satisfactorily. Which, the examiner respectfully submits, discloses a programmed or "requested" minimum value to remain operational.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall (US 20130184901 A1) in view of Elliott (US 10814999 B2) and Kobayashi (US 20190013700 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Walrath (US 20080178032 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Wall, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 7, and further, Wall in view of Elliott do not explicitly disclose, an input interface unit that allows input of the subsystem priority levels, wherein the priority-level adjusting unit adjusts the subsystem priority levels that are set for the plurality of subsystems to the subsystem priority levels that are inputted from the input interface unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Walrath discloses, ([0011]; [0013]; [0017]), for the benefit of limiting significant power draws causing high thermal profiles, thereby preventing a safety issue as well as prioritizing cooling systems for the electronic devices.
To the examiners best understanding, while giving every limitation substantial patentable weight, "the priority-level adjusting unit" does not adjust priority levels, but implements a user input. Which, which is not an adjustment by a device, but an adjustment by a user that is input into a device. This is the interpretation the examiner will apply for claim mapping when applying prior art. Further, to the examiners best understanding, the specification is devoid of matter that precludes the examiner from applying said interpretation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by a modified Wall to include user usage and priority input taught by Walrath. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to limit significant power draws causing high thermal profiles, thereby preventing a safety issue as well as prioritizing cooling systems for the electronic devices.
REGARDING CLAIM 9, Wall, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 8, and further, Walrath also discloses, the input interface unit inputs the subsystem priority levels through an external communication unit that allows input of the subsystem priority levels through communication from outside the control system (Walrath: [0011]; [0013]; [0017]).
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Wall, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 8, and further, Walrath also discloses, the input interface unit inputs the subsystem priority levels through a user interface (220) that allows input of the subsystem priority levels by the user (Walrath: [0011]; [0013]; [0017]).
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Wall, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 7, and further, Elliott also discloses, transmission of the requested power values from the plurality of sub-power managers to the integrated power manager and transmission of the input/output-power limit values from the integrated power manager to the plurality of sub-power managers are repeatedly performed (Elliott: (Col. 6, Ln. 15-16); (Col. 15, Ln. 20-40)); and the priority-level adjusting unit determines a difference between the requested power value that is received from each sub-power manager and the input/output-power limit value that is transmitted to each sub-power manager (Elliott: (Col. 1, Ln. 41-52); (Col. 1, Ln 62 - Col. 2, Ln. 3)).
The examiner submits, the duplication (repeating) of essential parts or steps involves routine skill and is within the scope of customary practices for one of ordinary skill, and is typically not considered as overcoming prior art. However, the examiner has applied prior art to the claimed repeating limitation.
Wall, as modified, do not explicitly disclose, adjusts the subsystem priority levels based on a statistical value of the difference.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Walrath discloses, ([0012]; [0028]), motivation addressed.
In this case, "adjusts the subsystem priority levels based on a statistical value of the difference" is interpreted as a change in priority based on a change in use. The instant specification discloses "Here, the subsystem priority levels may be adjusted based on an arbitrary type of statistical value of the difference, such as an average value of the difference or a maximum value of the difference within a predetermined amount of time, instead of the integrated value of the difference. (section F. Other Embodiments)”, which, to the examiners best understanding, is a change in priority base upon a change in use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02-06-2026, beginning on page 8, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that the prior art of record, specifically Elliott (US 10814999 B2), fails to disclose “independent subsystem priority levels are respectively set for the plurality of first sub-requested power values of the plurality of subsystems and the plurality of second sub-requested power values of the plurality of subsystems, and the plurality of sub-requested power values include a minimum required power value of the corresponding subsystem”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As cited above, Elliott (US 10814999 B2) discloses, independent subsystem priority levels are respectively set for the plurality of first sub-requested power values of the plurality of subsystems (Elliott: control schema aspects related to the flight phase or environmental operating characteristic of the aircraft, which may affect the energizing of electrical loads 20 or prioritization of such (Col. 8, Ln. 64-67); see (Col. 9, Ln. 64 - Col. 10, Ln. 1-27) for altering priorities based upon circumstances) and the plurality of second sub-requested power values of the plurality of subsystems (Elliott: control schema aspects related to the flight phase or environmental operating characteristic of the aircraft, which may affect the energizing of electrical loads 20 or prioritization of such (Col. 8, Ln. 64-67); see (Col. 9, Ln. 64 - Col. 10, Ln. 1-27) for altering priorities based upon circumstances), and the plurality of sub-requested power values include a minimum required power value of the corresponding subsystem (Elliott: energizing an electrical load 20 having a power input capacitor can result in a high transient power demand, but can operate satisfactorily if the current flow during power up is limited (e.g. resulting in a longer, but operational power up period). In one non-limiting example, the power input capacitor can be included as a portion of the RC load 40. In this instance, the electrical load 20 having a power input capacitor can be de-prioritized by way of the control schema described herein, as long as the power supply is at least a minimal threshold value to allow or enable the load 20 to operate satisfactorily (Col. 10, Ln. 52-56); The controller module 160 would be responsible for reviewing, analyzing, or the like, the “bids” or energy demands from the set of the SSPCs 234, 236, 238 and sending each SSPC 234, 236, 238 a personalized “contract” or command instruction detailing constraints including an energy “budget” for the forthcoming time period. The respective SSPC 234, 236, 238 would then be responsible for attempting to meet its electrical load 20 power demands in accordance with the command instruction or control input 170. As used herein, “meeting” the electrical load 20 power demands in accordance with the control input 170 can include controllably limiting, by at least one of the SSPC 234, 236, 238 or controller module 280 thereof, the maximum quantity of energy delivered, in accordance with the respective energy budget for the time period (Col. 12, Ln. 62 - Col. 13, Ln. 9); (Col. 14, Ln. 63-67)).
As cited above, Elliott (US 10814999 B2) discloses subsystem priorities changing based upon which phase of flight and other external circumstances and providing optimal or satisfactory power to operate the subsystem. Because Elliott (US 10814999 B2) discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Koebler (US 8972161 B1)
Elie (US 20170247927 A1)
Tokuchi (US 20190258531 A1)
Waite (US 20090152942 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights