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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 09/08/2025 in which claims 1, 5-8, 10, 14, and 18 were amended, claims 4 and 13 canceled, and claims 21-22 added. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 are pending for examination below.
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) 1, 4-5, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diamond et al. [US 2023/0256856] in view of Pathipati [US 2022/0410755].
With respect to claim 1, Diamond discloses a method, comprising: receiving a notification of a vehicle to be charged by a charging station comprising a plurality of chargers [104; i.e. via network 108]; in response to the notification, determining a first one of the plurality of chargers to be used to charge the vehicle [see at least step 408]; and visually communicating information identifying the first one of the plurality of chargers to be used [as illustrated in Figs 2 and 3] including information regarding available charging capacity [i.e. kW provided]. However, Diamond fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first subset of the plurality of chargers share power from a first power source and a second subset of the plurality of chargers share power from a second power source and the determining is based on available charging capacity of the first power source and available charging capacity of the second power source to either (a) balance charging between the first power source and the second power source or (b) preserve flexibility to accommodate additional charging demands.
Pathipati relates to a fleet charging station architecture for directing electric vehicles for recharging and teaches wherein a first subset of the plurality of chargers share power from a first power source and a second subset of the plurality of chargers share power from a second power source [various subsets of power sources from vehicle chargers 12,14,16,18 (i.e. inclusive of individual converters) are connected with multiple subsets of chargers 30,32,52,54,etc.] and the determining is based on available charging capacity of the first power source and available charging capacity of the second power source to either (a) balance charging between the first power source and the second power source or (b) preserve flexibility to accommodate additional charging demands [par. 0020, 0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify Diamond to direct the vehicles to a fleet charging station as taught by Pathipati for the benefit of enabling recharging or a large number of vehicles while employing an efficient and cost-effective charging method as explicitly stated by Pathipati [par. 0013].
With respect to claim 5, Diamond further discloses wherein the first one of the plurality of chargers is determined based upon a comparison of the available charging capacity of the first power source with a charging capacity of the available charging capacity of the second power source, wherein the second subset of the plurality of chargers is exclusive of the first subset of the plurality of chargers [Fig. 2; par. 0033, note the available chargers includes name and plug as different charging stations include multiple plugs with different capabilities, and Fig. 3 shows, based on the comparison, as recommended/determined charger].
With respect to claim 21, Pathipati as applied above, further discloses providing, using the first power source, all of its available power to one charger of the first subset of chargers when a single vehicle is charging at the first subset of chargers; and dividing, using the first power source, its available power among two or more chargers of the first subset of chargers when two or more vehicles are charging at the first subset of chargers [Fig. 1; i.e. the subset of chargers (54) are all connected to the charging station converters (44/46) via a bus line 50 and therefore the power is split among the amount used by the chargers and/or all available to a single charger].
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diamond et al. [US 2023/0256856] and Pathipati [US 2022/0410755] as applied above, and further in view of Uyeki [US 2014/0316939].
With respect to claims 2-3, Diamond fails to disclose selection of a charging station based on SOC as claimed. However, Uyeki relates to electric vehicle recharging for selecting a charging station and teaches comprising determining the first one of the plurality of chargers based upon a state of charge of the vehicle [Figs. 4-5, par. 0051-0056] and wherein the first one of the plurality of chargers is determined based upon a comparison of the state of charge of the vehicle to a state of charge of an additional vehicle [Fig. 8 shows selection of charging station includes data on the SOC of another vehicle].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Diamond to further incorporate the comparison of SOCs for the benefit of quickly selecting an available charging station thereby preventing the user from waiting and/or running out of battery life.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diamond et al. [US 2023/0256856] and Pathipati [US 2022/0410755] as applied above, and further in view of Gosai et al. [GB 2566442].
With respect to claims 6-9, Diamond fails to disclose a visual identifier at the charger as claimed. However, Gosai relates to electric vehicle charging by directing the vehicle to an associated charger by providing visual cues and teaches wherein visually communicating information identifying the first one of the plurality of chargers to the user of the vehicle includes activating a first visual identifier at the one of the plurality of chargers, wherein the first visual identifier includes a first color associated to the vehicle [abstract], wherein visually communicating information identifying the first one of the plurality of chargers to the user of the vehicle further comprises the vehicle displaying the first color to the user on a vehicle display [see figure 1, item 103 is the vehicle side light], further comprising visually communicating information identifying a second one of the plurality of chargers to an additional vehicle approaching the charging station with a second visual identifier comprising a second color distinct from the first color [pages 10-12 disclose the colors of the vehicle side and charger side comprise many combinations such as red, blue, and green, etc.], and further comprising communicating a second one of the plurality of chargers to an additional vehicle approaching the charging station with a second visual identifier, wherein the first visual identifier and the second visual identifier each include a variation synchronized with a time window [bottom of page 4 details that the identification lighting is synchronized].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Diamond to further incorporate the illumination scheme as taught by Gosai for the benefit of efficiently/quickly guiding the user of the vehicle to the correct charging station/location by use of easily distinguishable lighting.
Claim(s) 10, 15-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosai et al. [GB 2566442] in view of Pathipati [US 2022/0410755].
With respect to claims 10 and 18, Gosai discloses a system for charging vehicles via a plurality of chargers [Figs 5-6; each parking space represent a charging station for a vehicle], the system comprising: a processor [Fig. 2], configured to: receive a notification of a vehicle to be charged by a charging station comprising the plurality of chargers [via signal 104]; and in response to the notification, determine a first one of the plurality of chargers for charging the vehicle and a first visual identifier located at a first one of the plurality of chargers, wherein the processor is configured to activate the first visual identifier to communicate the first one of the plurality of chargers to be used [Figs. 3-4; page 2, in response to the communication the vehicle is directed to a compatible charging spot by illumination or colors in the charging spot], and a second visual identifier located at a second one of the plurality of chargers; wherein the processor is configured to activate one of the first visual identifier or the second visual identifier to the vehicle to identify the first one of the plurality of chargers to be used [Figs 5-6; note each charging station/spot has a visual identifier wherein the identifiers change color based on the compatibility]. However, Gosai fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first subset of the plurality of chargers share power from a first power source and a second subset of the plurality of chargers share power from a second power source and the determining is based on available charging capacity of the first power source and available charging capacity of the second power source to either (a) balance charging between the first power source and the second power source or (b) preserve flexibility to accommodate additional charging demands.
Pathipati relates to a fleet charging station architecture for directing electric vehicles for recharging and teaches wherein a first subset of the plurality of chargers share power from a first power source and a second subset of the plurality of chargers share power from a second power source [various subsets of power sources from vehicle chargers 12,14,16,18 (i.e. inclusive of individual converters) are connected with multiple subsets of chargers 30,32,52,54,etc.] and the determining is based on available charging capacity of the first power source and available charging capacity of the second power source to either (a) balance charging between the first power source and the second power source or (b) preserve flexibility to accommodate additional charging demands [par. 0020, 0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify Diamond to direct the vehicles to a fleet charging station as taught by Pathipati for the benefit of enabling recharging or a large number of vehicles while employing an efficient and cost-effective charging method as explicitly stated by Pathipati [par. 0013].
With respect to claim 15, Gosai further discloses wherein the first visual identifier includes a first color associated to the vehicle, and wherein the system comprises a second visual identifier located at a second one of the plurality of chargers, the second visual identifier comprising a second color distinct from the first color [abstract, pages 10-12, i.e. green color of compatible station versus red color of one that is not compatible].
With respect to claims 16 and 19, Gosai further discloses wherein the first/second visual identifier includes a plurality of selectively activated colors or movement patterns [page 10, i.e. multiple colors available].
With respect to claims 17 and 20, Gosai further discloses wherein the processor is configured to communicate one of a plurality of distinct charging statuses to the vehicle via the first visual identifier, the plurality of distinct charging statuses each associated with a different one of the plurality of selectively activated colors or movement patterns [pages 10-12, i.e. multiple colors available that indicate a compatible charging status or not].
With respect to claim 21, Pathipati as applied above, further discloses providing, using the first power source, all of its available power to one charger of the first subset of chargers when a single vehicle is charging at the first subset of chargers; and dividing, using the first power source, its available power among two or more chargers of the first subset of chargers when two or more vehicles are charging at the first subset of chargers [Fig. 1; i.e. the subset of chargers (54) are all connected to the charging station converters (44/46) via a bus line 50 and therefore the power is split among the amount used by the chargers and/or all available to a single charger].
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosai et al. [GB 2566442] and Pathipati [US 2022/0410755] as applied above, and further in view of Uyeki [US 2014/0316939].
With respect to claims 11-12, Gosai fails to disclose selection of a charging station based on SOC as claimed. However, Uyeki relates to electric vehicle recharging for selecting a charging station and teaches comprising determining the first one of the plurality of chargers based upon a state of charge of the vehicle [Figs. 4-5, par. 0051-0056] and wherein the first one of the plurality of chargers is determined based upon a comparison of the state of charge of the vehicle to a state of charge of an additional vehicle [Fig. 8 shows selection of charging station includes data on the SOC of another vehicle].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Gosai to further incorporate the comparison of SOCs for the benefit of quickly selecting an available charging station thereby preventing the user from waiting and/or running out of battery life.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosai et al. [GB 2566442] and Pathipati [US 2022/0410755] as applied above, and further in view of Diamond et al. [US 2023/0256856].
With respect to claim 14, Gosai fails to explicitly disclose determining a charging capacity of the charging source/charger as claimed. However, Diamond relates to recharging electric vehicles by directing them to charging stations and teaches determining the first one of the plurality of chargers based upon a comparison of the available charging capacity of the first power source with the available charging capacity of the second power source, wherein the second subset of the plurality of chargers is exclusive of the first subset of the plurality of chargers [Fig. 2; par. 0033, note the available chargers includes name and plug as different charging stations include multiple plugs with different capabilities, and Fig. 3 shows, based on the comparison, as recommended/determined charger].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Gosai to further incorporate the determination of the charger’s charging capacity in the determination as taught by Diamond for the benefit of efficiently matching the needs of the vehicle with a charger that can met those needs, thereby ensuring compatible charging takes place in an efficient manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and 18 have been considered but are moot because a new grounds of rejection is provided to Pathipati and applicant has not yet had a chance to respond.
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 NATHANIEL R PELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859