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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 02/03/2026 claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-17 are pending. Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14 are amended to improve readability and/or to add new limitations not previously presented. Claims 4 and 11 are cancelled. Claims 16-17 are new. Claims 1, 8, and 17 are independent.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 02/03/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC § 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is presented below based on a different interpretation of the previously cited references applied in a 35 USC § 103 rejection.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (USPGPN 20160075248), and further in view of Eger et al. (USPGPN 20140225565); both identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the International Preliminary Report on Patentability.
With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 17, Jeong teaches an apparatus and method for the control of electric vehicle (EV) charging (Figs. 2-5, Electric Power Demand Management System 200. Figs. 6-11, the methods for the control of EV charging executed by the Electric Power Demand Management System 200 of Figs. 2-5).
Jeong teaches the apparatus being remotely located from an EV charging station and an EV to be charged by the EV charging station (Fig. 2; the electric power demand management system is located remotely from the EVs 24a-24n and the EV charging stations 204a-204n).
Jeong teaches the apparatus comprising at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing processor-executable instructions (Figs. 4-5, the processors 40/42/44/46 and a non-transitory media (not shown in the drawings) store and execute program code for the methods/instructions disclosed in Figs. 6-11, see ¶’s [65, 160]).
Jeong teaches cause the at least one processor to (a) pre-instruct at least one EV charging station to provide an EV with a station current when a charging session for the EV is initiated at the at least one EV charging station (Fig. 10, in steps S1000-S1008 an EV station to EV charging session is initiated esp. in step S1008 were electric power is provided to the EV, see ¶ [128]).
Jeong teaches cause the at least one processor to (b) after the initiation of the charging session, perform non-real-time remote monitoring of an actual current consumed by the EV during the charging session (Fig. 11, in step S1102 the measured power usage amount is measured in periodic batches [i.e., in non-real time] for adjusting charging conditions for the maximum power usage amount [also referred to as a peak power usage amount], see ¶’s [135-137]).
Jeong teaches cause the at least one processor to (c) calculate a ratio of the measurement of the actual to the station current of the at least one EV charging station (Fig. 11, in step S1104 a proximity degree is calculated which indicates numerically a relationship between the actual measured power usage amount and the maximum allowable power usage amount, see ¶ [138]).
Jeong teaches cause the at least one processor to (d) based on the ratio, decide whether to decrease, remain or increase the station current provided by the at least one EV charging station (Fig. 11, in step S1106 system 200 determines if the proximity degree has exceeded a threshold value to determine if a restricting adjustment to the charging level needs to be applied as in S1108 or if a regular charging condition may remain as in S1124, see ¶’s [139-140, 148]. This determination step would satisfy the bounds of the maximum allowable power usage amount by decreasing, remaining at, or increasing the power delivered from the EV station to the EV).
Jeong teaches cause the at least one processor to (e) instruct, on a non-real-time basis, the at least one EV charging station to operate in accordance with the decision made in operation (d) (Fig. 11, based on the determination step S1106 system 200 executes step S1124 or step S1108, see ¶’s [139-140, 148]).
However, Jeong fails to explicitly teach the non-real-time remote monitoring being based on measurements of the actual current at discrete times during the charging session such that a change in the actual current consumed by the EV occurring between succeeding discrete times is monitored with delay, each of the measurements of the actual current corresponding to a fraction of the station current consumed by the EV at respective one of the discrete times; (c) for each of the measurements of the actual current; and wherein instructing on the non-real time basis provides a delay between a time of the measurement of the actual current used for the decision made in operation (d) and a subsequent time of instructing the EV charging station to operate in accordance with the decision made in operation (d).
Eger teaches the non-real-time remote monitoring being based on measurements of the actual current at discrete times during the charging session such that a change in the actual current consumed by the EV occurring between succeeding discrete times is monitored with delay, each of the measurements of the actual current corresponding to a fraction of the station current consumed by the EV at respective one of the discrete times (¶[76-79]; the system operates in discrete time (i.e., non-real-time) by sampling each charger’s actual current at specific time points, where each measured current represents a portion of the total system current. One of ordinary skill understands the measurements at specific time points causes a delay).
Eger teaches for each of the measurements of the actual current (¶[76-79]; measurements are done for each charger’s current).
Eger teaches wherein instructing on the non-real time basis provides a delay between a time of the measurement of the actual current used for the decision made in operation (d) and a subsequent time of instructing the EV charging station to operate in accordance with the decision made in operation (d) (¶[13]; after measuring electrical energy (i.e., charging current) for a session, the system introduces a time delay before making a decision based on the measured energy level before proceeding with steps).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jeong by adding the features disclosed by Eger. The advantage of this modification being the load distribution is adjusted for multiple sessions by incremental distribution of the electrical energy, thus preventing occurrence of severe loading of an energy network. The method provides an efficient approach for charging the electric vehicles and avoids occurrence of load peaks that are caused by new or changed load distribution. (in the abstract and ¶’s [06, 42] of Eger).
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 9, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 8, respectively. Further, Jeong teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operation (b) by receiving the measurements of the actual current from the at least one EV charging station at regular intervals during the charging session (Fig. 11, the electric power usage measurements made in step S1102 are done periodically [e.g., every 30 minutes], see ¶ [137]).
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 10, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 2 and 9, respectively. Further, Jeong teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operation (b) by receiving the measurements of the actual current from the at least one EV charging station at regular intervals and after each change of the actual current during the charging session (Fig. 11, the electric power usage measurements made in step S1102 are done periodically [e.g., every 30 minutes] and the measurement of step S1102 is done in response to a new charging level selected condition in step S1118 followed by the application of the newly selected charging level in step S1120, see ¶’s [137, 145-146]).
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 13, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 8, respectively. Further, Jeong teaches wherein when there are two or more EV charging stations at which charging sessions are initiated for EVs, and each EV charging station is characterized by an equal maximum allowable current, the at least one processor is configured to perform operations (a)-(e) to control the EV charging at each of the two or more EV charging stations (Fig. 2, electric chargers 204a-204n for EVs 24a-24n. The operations disclosed in Jeong for adjusting charge levels according to the proximity degree between a target power usage amount and a current/predicted power usage amount are done for one or more EV charging stations, see ¶ [12]. When there are two or more EV charging stations, the target power amount and the electric power usage amount may be determined as one value for all of the two or more EV charging stations, see ¶ [19]).
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 14, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 6 and 13, respectively. Further, Jeong teaches wherein the two or more EV charging stations are combined in a group of EV charging stations (Fig. 2, electric chargers 204a-204n for EVs 24a-24n) and the at least one processor (Figs. 4-5, the processors 40/42/44/46).
However, Jeong fails to explicitly teach the group of EV charging stations is characterized by a total current, and a maximum allowable current for the two or more EV charging stations is less than the total current, and wherein configured to calculate the station current as min(I1, I2), where min( ) is the function that returns the smallest value from the numbers provided, I1 is the maximum allowable current for the two or more EV charging stations, and I2 = Itotal / N is the current obtained by evenly distributing the total current Itotal of the group of EV charging stations among all N EVs that have initiated the charging sessions at the current time.
Eger teaches the group of EV charging stations is characterized by a total current, and a maximum allowable current for the two or more EV charging stations is less than the total current (Fig. 1, charging stations 109/110/111/112 are characterized by a maximum permissible charging capacity of the cable between the charging station and the feeder [i.e., the total current] and a maximum permissible charging capacity of the charging station [i.e, the maximum allowable current of the charging station], see ¶’s [120-122]).
Eger teaches wherein configured to calculate the station current as min(I1, I2), where min( ) is the function that returns the smallest value from the numbers provided, I1 is the maximum allowable current for the two or more the EV charging stations, and I2 = Itotal / N is the current obtained by evenly distributing the total current Itotal of the group of EV charging stations among all N EVs that have initiated the charging sessions at the current time (In ¶ [123], the lowest of the maximum permissible charging capacities is selected from the charging capacity of the cable between the EV and the charging station, the charging capacity of the charging station, and the charging capacity of the cable between the charging station and the feeder. The total available power is shared among all charging stations connected to the same cable/feeder, see ¶ [115]. The total available current is divided among n charging stations ensuring that each session gets a fair allocation, see ¶’s [162-164]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jeong by adding the features disclosed by Eger. The advantage of this modification being the load distribution is adjusted for multiple sessions by incremental distribution of the electrical energy, thus preventing occurrence of severe loading of an energy network. The method provides an efficient approach for charging the electric vehicles and avoids occurrence of load peaks that are caused by new or changed load distribution. (in the abstract and ¶’s [06, 42] of Eger).
With respect to claim 15, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. Further, Jeong teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform the method of claim 8 (Figs. 4-5, the processors 40/42/44/46 and a non-transitory media (not shown in the drawings) store and execute program code for the methods/instructions disclosed in Figs. 6-11, see ¶’s [65, 160]).
With respect to claim 16, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Jeong fails to explicitly teach wherein the station current provided by the at least one EV charging station to the EV when the charging session for the EV is initiated at the at least one EV charging station is less than what the EV requires for charging.
Eger teaches wherein the station current provided by the at least one EV charging station to the EV when the charging session for the EV is initiated at the at least one EV charging station is less than what the EV requires for charging (¶[78]; the difference between the target current and the actual current represents unused current, thereby one of ordinary skill understands that the actual current drawn by a session could be less than the target current required).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jeong by adding the features disclosed by Eger. The advantage of this modification being the load distribution is adjusted for multiple sessions by incremental distribution of the electrical energy, thus preventing occurrence of severe loading of an energy network. The method provides an efficient approach for charging the electric vehicles and avoids occurrence of load peaks that are caused by new or changed load distribution. (in the abstract and ¶’s [06, 42] of Eger).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong and Eger, and further in view of by Yamamoto et al. (Japanese Patent JP-2013158146-A); identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the Japanese Office Action.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 12, Jeong teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 8, respectively. However, Jeong fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured, in operation (d), to decide to decrease the station current if the ratio is less than 0.80, or maintain the station current if the ratio is within the range of 0.80 to 0.90, or increase the station current if the ratio is more than 0.90.
Yamamoto teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured, in operation (d), to decide to decrease the station current if the ratio is less than 0.80, or maintain the station current if the ratio is within the range of 0.80 to 0.90, or increase the station current if the ratio is more than 0.90 (Fig. 5, the power setting value is reduced, maintained, and increased. The power is reduced when the ratio is smaller than 80%, see ¶’s [60, 76]; examiner notes to the applicant that the alternative was used for the three options here, so only one of them was required [i.e. a Markush claim], if the applicant amended this claim so that all the steps were required to be considered, then it may very well advance prosecution, since Yamamoto only teaches one of the three options).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jeong by adding the features disclosed by Yamamoto. The advantage of this modification being the charging station can make the determination of dynamically changing the charging rate due to changes in the system and charging state thereby increasing the charging efficiency output (in ¶’s [41-47] of Yamamoto).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and/or cited in Foreign Office Actions were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Mastrandrea (USPGPN 20180065494) teaches a system to facilitate a network of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. Information regarding individual EV stations can be gathered and stored in one or more databases. Such information may be used to facilitate routing and/or scheduling of individual EV charging to the EV charging stations. A request may be received over a network to charge an EV. In response to receiving the request, one or more charging stations in the network may be determined as being available for charging the EV. Information regarding the one or more charging stations may be “pushed” to the EV and/or a client computing device associated with the EV for selection. A selection of a particular EV charging station can be received and the selected EV charging station can be accordingly reserved for charging the EV.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm 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, 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights