DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 06/18/2025, claims 1-4 and 6-7 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are amended. Claim 5 is presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims are withdrawn, with the following exception, due to the amendments.
Claim objection: “control unit” in claim 7, line 11 should be revised to “control device”.
The prior Double Patenting rejections are withdrawn due to the terminal disclaimer filed on 08/06/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 08/06/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 17/721,713 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/18/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 11 recites “control unit”, which should be revised to “control device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6, lines 3-4 recite “and that includes a control device”. This language is indefinite as to which of the “electric power management server”, “electric power management system”, or “electric system of a counterparty” includes the “control device”. For examination purposes, it is assumed this language is modifying the “electric power management server”.
Claim 7, line 4 recites “and that includes a control device”. This language is indefinite as to which of the “server”, “electric power management system”, or “electric system of a counterparty” includes the “control device”. For examination purposes, it is assumed this language is modifying the “server”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2019/0280509 A1; hereinafter “Yoko”) in view of Saita (US 2022/0297565 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoko discloses an electric power management system (Fig. 1) that performs an exchange of electric power (Abstract: “capable of transferring electric power to and from an external electric power network”) with an electric system (“electric power network 12”; Fig. 1) of a counterparty (“electric power supplier”; ¶ [52]) of the exchange of the electric power.
Yoko further discloses the electric power management system (Fig. 1) comprising a vehicle (“15”; Figs. 1-2), including an electric power storage device (“storage battery 125”; Fig. 2) and a server (“aggregator 17” embodies the titular “server device” per ¶ [8]; includes internal “decision unit 205”; Figs. 1, 3, 5; ¶ [52]: “17 which manages the charge and discharge of the storage battery”).
Yoko further discloses the server (17) manages an exchange of the electric power (per ¶ [74]: “205” transmits an instruction for charging “125” with electric power from “12”) between the electric power storage device (125) the vehicle (15) and the electric system (12).
Yoko further discloses the server (“17” with internal “205”) limits the exchange of the electric power (¶ [73-74]) between the electric system (“12”) and the electric power storage device (“125”) by a lower limit value (Figs. 5-6: “V2G lower limit SOC”) of a state of charge of the electric power storage device (“SOC of a storage battery” per ¶ [48]).
Yoko does not disclose that the server “changes the lower limit value in accordance with a degree of charge-discharge of the electric power storage device”.
Saita teaches the server (“management server 20”; Fig. 1) limits the exchange of the electric power between the electric system (“charging equipment 18”; Fig. 1; ¶ [24]: “power source outside the vehicle”) and the electric power storage device (“battery 12” within “vehicle 16”; Fig. 1) by a lower limit value of a state of charge (“SOC_min”; Fig. 6) of the electric power storage device (12).
Saita further teaches the server (20) changes the lower limit value (per ¶ [104], “SOC_min” is set to either “SOC_min1” or “SOC_min2”; Fig. 6; per ¶ [102], “SOC_min1” is calculated from “ΔSOC_const1”; thus “SOC_min” is changed based on “N_tar”; Fig. 6, steps) in accordance with a degree of charge-discharge (“minimum charging frequency Nmin2”; ¶ [84]: “minimum value for the charging frequency of the battery 12 per week in consideration of suppressing the deterioration of the battery 12”; “N_min2” is calculated from the battery’s “average consumption amount ΔSOC_drv1”, per ¶ [50-51, 84]) of the electric power storage device (12).
Saita further teaches changing the lower limit SOC value in accordance with a degree of charge-discharge of the vehicle’s electric power storage device to suppress deterioration of the battery (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server disclosed by Yoko to change the lower limit value in accordance with a degree of charge-discharge of the electric power storage device, as taught by Saita, to suppress deterioration of the electrical power storage device.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Yoko and Saita teaches the electric power management system according to claim 1.
Yoko does not disclose “wherein when the degree of charge-discharge of the electric power storage device is larger than a predetermined reference, the server increases the lower limit value, as compared with a case where the degree of charge-discharge is smaller than the predetermined reference”.
Saita teaches when the degree of charge-discharge (“Nmin2”) of the electric power storage device (12) is larger (“no” response to step S27: “Nmin2<Nu_reject2”; Fig. 4) than a predetermined reference (“user-tolerated charging frequency Nu_reject2”; ¶ [86]: “threshold value of the charging frequency at which the user does not tolerate the number of charges, even if the deterioration of the battery 12 can be suppressed”), the server (20) increases the lower limit value (“SOC_min” increases in the scenario when “N_tar” was previously set to “Nu_reject2” per the disclosed step S31, followed by re-performing the disclosed method when “repeating the charging control process” per ¶ [76], such as when a user decides to decrease their input “user-tolerated charging frequency Nu”, resulting in “N_tar” changing to be set to the lower value “Nu” per step S32”; per steps S33-S37, a decrease in “N_tar” results in an increased “SOC_min”; see annotated Fig. 6 for claim 2, included infra).
PNG
media_image1.png
910
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Saita further teaches this case (“no” response to step S27) as compared with a case (“yes” response to step S27) where the degree of charge-discharge (“Nmin2”) is smaller than the predetermined reference (“Nu_reject2”).
Saita further teaches to increase the lower limit value when the degree of charge-discharge is larger than a predetermined reference to improve user-friendliness by considering the user’s preferred frequency of charging sessions (¶ [88]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server disclosed by the combination of Yoko and Saita to increase the lower limit value when the degree of charge-discharge is larger than a predetermined reference, as further taught by Saita, to improve user-friendliness of the electric power management system by considering the user’s preferred frequency of charging sessions.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Yoko and Saita teaches the electric power management system according to claim 1.
Yoko does not disclose “wherein when the degree of charge-discharge of the electric power storage device is smaller than a predetermined reference, the server decreases the lower limit value, as compared with a case where the degree of charge-discharge is larger than the predetermined reference”.
Saita teaches when the degree of charge-discharge (“Nmin2”) of the electric power storage device (12) is smaller (“yes” response to step S27: “Nmin2<Nu_reject2”; Fig. 4) than a predetermined reference (“user-tolerated charging frequency Nu_reject2”; ¶ [86]: “threshold value of the charging frequency at which the user does not tolerate the number of charges, even if the deterioration of the battery 12 can be suppressed”), the server (20) decreases the lower limit value (“Ntar” increases in step S30; thus, “ΔSOC_const1” decreases in step S33; thus, “SOC_min1” decreases in step S35; thus, the lower limit value “SOC_min” decreases in step S37; Figs. 5-6; see annotated Fig. 6 for claim 3, included infra).
PNG
media_image2.png
906
920
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Saita further teaches this case (“yes” response to step S27) as compared with a case (“no” response to step S27) where the degree of charge-discharge (“Nmin2”) is larger than the predetermined reference (“Nu_reject2”).
Saita further teaches to decrease the lower limit value when the degree of charge-discharge is smaller than a predetermined reference to suppress deterioration of the battery (Abstract), while also considering the user’s preferred frequency of charging sessions (¶ [88])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server disclosed by the combination of Yoko and Saita to decrease the lower limit value when the degree of charge-discharge is smaller than a predetermined reference, as further taught by Saita, to suppress deterioration of the battery, while also considering the user’s preferences.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2019/0280509 A1; hereinafter “Yoko”) in view of Saita (US 2022/0297565 A1) and Tsutsumi (US 2021/0009004 A1; hereinafter “Tsu”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Yoko and Saita teaches the electric power management system according to claim 2.
Yoko does not disclose “when the exchange of the electric power between the electric power storage device and the electric system is to supply the electric power from the electric power storage device to the electric system, the server limits the state of charge of the electric power storage device by the lower limit value”.
Tsu discloses that when the exchange of the electric power between the electric power storage device (“traveling battery 30”; Fig. 1) and the electric system (“power grid PG”; Fig. 1) is to supply the electric power from the electric power storage device to the electric system (Fig. 5 shows scenario in which power is discharged from the “30” and transferred to “PG”; ¶ [64-66]), the following occurs.
Tsu further discloses the server (“aggregate device 500”; Fig. 1; ¶ [92]: “may be … a server device”) limits the state of charge of the electric power storage device (“30”) by the lower limit value (Fig. 5 shows the “discharge” power transfer stop when SOC of “30” reaches lower limit “THsL” at time “t4”; ¶ [64-66]).
Tsu further teaches to limit the SOC by the lower limit value during the supply of electric power from the electrical power storage device to the electric system for the advantage of curbing the deterioration of the electric power storage device of an electric vehicle (¶ [7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server disclosed by the combination of Yoko and Saita to limit the SOC by the lower limit value during the supply of electric power from the electrical power storage device to the electric system, as taught by Tsu, to curb the deterioration of the electric power storage device.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2019/0280509 A1; hereinafter “Yoko”) in view of Saita (US 2022/0297565 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoko discloses an electric power management server (“aggregator 17” embodies the titular “server device” per ¶ [8]; Figs. 1, 3, 5; ¶ [52]: “17 which manages the charge and discharge of the storage battery”; ¶ [61]).
Yoko further discloses that the electric power management server (17) is included in an electric power management system (Fig. 1) for performing an exchange of electric power (Abstract: “capable of transferring electric power to and from an external electric power network”) with an electric system (“electric power network 12”; Fig. 1) of a counterparty (“electric power supplier”; ¶ [52]) of the exchange of the electric power.
Yoko further discloses the electric power management server “17) includes a control device (“decision unit 205”; Fig. 3) that manages an exchange of the electric power (per ¶ [74]: “205” transmits an instruction for charging “125” with electric power from “12”) between an electric power storage device (“storage battery 125”; Fig. 2) of a vehicle (“15”; Figs. 1-2) and the electric system (12).
Yoko further discloses the control device (205, within 17) limits the exchange of the electric power (¶ [73-74]) between the electric system (12) and the electric power storage device (125) by a lower limit value (Figs. 5-6: “V2G lower limit SOC”) of a state of charge of the electric power storage device (“SOC of a storage battery” per ¶ [48]).
Yoko does not disclose that the control device “changes the lower limit value in accordance with a degree of charge-discharge of the electric power storage device”.
Saita teaches the control device (“control section 38” within “management server 20”; Fig. 1) limits the exchange of the electric power between the electric system (“charging equipment 18”; Fig. 1; ¶ [24]: “power source outside the vehicle”) and the electric power storage device (“battery 12” within “vehicle 16”; Fig. 1) by a lower limit value of a state of charge (“SOC_min”; Fig. 6) of the electric power storage device (12).
Saita further teaches the control device (38, within 20) changes the lower limit value (per ¶ [104], “SOC_min” is set to either “SOC_min1” or “SOC_min2”; Fig. 6; per ¶ [102], “SOC_min1” is calculated from “ΔSOC_const1”; thus “SOC_min” is changed based on “N_tar”; Fig. 6, steps) in accordance with a degree of charge-discharge (“minimum charging frequency Nmin2”; ¶ [84]: “minimum value for the charging frequency of the battery 12 per week in consideration of suppressing the deterioration of the battery 12”; “N_min2” is calculated from the battery’s “average consumption amount ΔSOC_drv1”, per ¶ [50-51, 84]) of the electric power storage device (12).
Saita further teaches changing the lower limit SOC value in accordance with a degree of charge-discharge of the vehicle’s electric power storage device to suppress deterioration of the battery (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server’s control device disclosed by Yoko to change the lower limit value in accordance with a degree of charge-discharge of the electric power storage device, as taught by Saita, to suppress deterioration of the electrical power storage device.
Regarding Claim 7, Yoko discloses an electric power management method (Fig. 5: “start” to “end”; ¶ [73-74]) executed by a server (“aggregator 17” embodies the titular “server device” per ¶ [8]; Figs. 1, 3, 5; ¶ [52]: “17 which manages the charge and discharge of the storage battery”; ¶ [61]).
Yoko further discloses the server (17) is included in an electric power management system (Fig. 1) for performing an exchange of electric power (Abstract: “capable of transferring electric power to and from an external electric power network”) with an electric system (“electric power network 12”; Fig. 1) of a counterparty (“electric power supplier”; ¶ [52]) of the exchange of the electric power.
Yoko further discloses the server (17) includes a control device (“decision unit 205”; Fig. 3) that manages an exchange of the electric power (per ¶ [74]: “205” transmits an instruction for charging “125” with electric power from “12”) between an electric power storage device (“storage battery 125”; Fig. 2) of each of a plurality of vehicles (“15”; Figs. 1-2) and the electric system (12).
Yoko further discloses the electric power management method (Fig. 5; also reference the method of Fig. 4 performed by the vehicle “15” in response to instructions from “205”/“17”; ¶ [73-74]) comprising the following steps.
Yoko further discloses a step (Fig. 5: any one of steps S207, S209, S211) in which the control device (205, within 17) limits the exchange of the electric power (¶ [73-74]) between the electric system (12) and the electric power storage device (125) by a lower limit value (Figs. 5-6: “V2G lower limit SOC”) of a state of charge of the electric power storage device (“SOC of a storage battery” per ¶ [48]).
Yoko does not disclose “a step in which the control unit changes the lower limit value in accordance with a degree of charge-discharge of the electric power storage device”.
Saita teaches a step (Fig. 6, step S37) in which the control device (“control section 38” within “management server 20”; Fig. 1) limits the exchange of the electric power between the electric system (“charging equipment 18”; Fig. 1; ¶ [24]: “power source outside the vehicle”) and the electric power storage device (“battery 12” within “vehicle 16”; Fig. 1) by a lower limit value of a state of charge (“SOC_min”; Fig. 6) of the electric power storage device (12).
Saita teaches a step (Fig. 6, steps S33-S37 result in changes to “SOC_min” based on changed value of “N_tar”) in which the control unit (18, within 20) (per ¶ [104], “SOC_min” is set to either “SOC_min1” or “SOC_min2”; Fig. 6; per ¶ [102], “SOC_min1” is calculated from “ΔSOC_const1”; thus “SOC_min” is changed based on “N_tar”; Fig. 6, steps) in accordance with a degree of charge-discharge (“minimum charging frequency Nmin2”; ¶ [84]: “minimum value for the charging frequency of the battery 12 per week in consideration of suppressing the deterioration of the battery 12”; “N_min2” is calculated from the battery’s “average consumption amount ΔSOC_drv1”, per ¶ [50-51, 84]) of the electric power storage device (12).
Saita further teaches changing the lower limit SOC value in accordance with a degree of charge-discharge of the vehicle’s electric power storage device to suppress deterioration of the battery (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and the server’s control device disclosed by Yoko to change the lower limit value in accordance with a degree of charge-discharge of the electric power storage device, as taught by Saita, to suppress deterioration of the electrical power storage device.
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 Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859