DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 17/990,851 filed on October 20, 2025. 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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are still pending, with claims 11-12 being currently amended.
Status of Objections and Non-Prior Art Rejections
I. 35 USC § 112 Rejections
Applicant’s amendments to claim 11 are accepted. The 112(b) rejection of claim 11 is therefore withdrawn.
II. Double Patenting Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the double patenting rejections are persuasive. Therefore, the double patenting rejections over co-pending application No. 18/072,047 no longer apply and are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
On page 11 of the remarks filed October 20, 2025, Applicant argues:
The Office asserts that Penilla discloses determining whether the electric vehicle has passed a power grid border during travel (citing ?? 54, 55, 114). Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Penilla discusses tracking when an EV enters or leaves a "grid area," but this "grid area" is not defined as a power grid border in the manner claimed. There is no disclosure of a determination that the vehicle has crossed into a distinct grid jurisdiction that triggers changes to charging policy based on a new area code.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Penilla in cited paragraph 54 states:
[0054] In some embodiments, the charge consumption data at CUs is saved to a charge consumption database, the charge consumption database holds data that includes when EVs enter one power grid area and/or leave a second power grid area.
Applicant argues that Penilla teaches a “grid area” instead of a “power grid border”. Examiner disagrees, noting that Penilla explicitly discloses entering or leaving a power grid area. Crossing into or out of a power grid area inherently involves the crossing of a power grid border, since the power grid areas are defined enough for the detection of “entering” or “leaving”.
With respect to the argued “triggering changes to charging policy based on a new area code” this is not claimed exactly, and the relevant arguments are addressed in the portion of the response to arguments for the “receiving an area code update request message portion” below.
On pages 11-12 of the remarks filed October 20, 2025, Applicant argues:
The Office then asserts that Penilla teaches transmitting information on a current travel path and current area code to a server in response to that determination (citing 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207). Again, Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Penilla discusses transmitting route and location data to a server to facilitate suggestions of charging locations, but does not disclose transmitting an 'area code' identifier, nor using such transmission in response to a detected power grid border. There is no suggestion of area codes driving server-side charging logic.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Penilla in paragraphs 105, 114 and 119 states:
[0105] For instance, if a user has programmed their EV to reach a destination (e.g., Point B), from a current location (e.g., Point A), the mapping can population information concerning available CUIPs in the vicinity of the chosen path between A and B…”
Thus, a current path, and information of a current area code, since the current location is associated with the current area code; the discover of CUIPs (which occurs via information being passed to server)
[0114] […] Because EVs move around and enter and leave new power grid areas, the power grid suppliers will need to know when more EVs enter their region or are purchased in their region[…] However, in one embodiment, it is possible to track when each one of the EVs travel into a grid area or region and when they leave the grid area[…] In addition, it is possible to project when more EVs enter or leave the number of operating EVs.
[0119] ][…]The charge location tracker 130 is a module that collects location data from EVs, which defines an EV grid 150. The EV grid is a map that shows the location of EVs and the paths taken by EVs over time or in real time […]
Thus, information regarding the vehicle’s current travel path (collected location of “the location of EVs and the paths taken by EVs over time or in real time) is transmitted by the vehicles and received by the server in real time. Real time information of the “paths taken by EVs” is “information” “on a current travel path”. Real time information of the “location” of EVs is information “of a current area code. If Applicant had meant exactly the “area code” then Applicant would not have used the preposition “of” and instead would have recited the narrow “transmitting the current area code”. Instead, Applicant used broader terminology like “information of a current area code”, thus Examiner is interpreting the claim according to the broadest reasonable interpretation which includes information related to “current area code”, like the location. This information “on” the current travel path” and “of” the current area code is transmitted in real time, thus both in response to a determination of a passing of a power grid border and otherwise. Furthermore, paragraph 114 states that the location of the EVs is tracked to determine when it enters and leaves a grid area, thus in response to leaving one grid area, the EV enters another and the location information is updated in response.
With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding “area codes driving server-side charging logic” it is unclear which claim limitation this is referring to.
On page 12 of the remarks filed October 20, 2025, Applicant argues:
The Office asserts that Penilla teaches receiving an area code update request message comprising information on a new area code and a fee rate policy corresponding to it. However, Penilla describes retrieving pricing information related to individual charge units, but this data is station-centric, not area-code-based. There is no concept of receiving a structured update message that contains a new area code and a corresponding policy.
The Office asserts that Penilla teaches updating a charging/discharging schedule based on the fee rate policy for the new area code (citing 100-101, 207). While Penilla may describe adjusting routes based on charge unit availability and potential discounts, it does not disclose any fee-rate-policy-based schedule update driven by an area code change. Its dynamic schedule changes are entirely navigation-based, not policy-driven via grid-level information.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, Examiner points to the distinction between the claimed “information on a new area code” and the argued “new area code”. The use of the prepositions “on” or “of” broaden the interpretation from the parameter itself to related parameters. Location information is “information on a new area code” even if it is not the “area code” per se.
Penilla teaches receiving new pricing information as the vehicle travels, including into/out of power grid areas (pars. 54, 114 & 119). As the vehicle travels in Penilla’s invention, the pricing information on the first charge station it comes across in the new power grid area would qualify as the “are code update request message” since it is information “on a new area code” (from a charging station in the new area code) and “a charging/discharging fee rate policy corresponding to the new area code” (a price of a charging station in the new area code, noting that the indefinite article “a” is used, thus not excluding the possibility of there being more than one “charging/discharging fee rate policy”). Thus providing information on charging stations in the vicinity of a path is providing information “on a new area code” in the same way that a billboard indicating restaurants or gas as you pass from one county/region/state to another is providing information on the new area code. Nowhere in the claim is it stated that the message has to be a “structured update” containing “a new area code”.
On page 12 of the remarks filed October 20, 2025, Applicant argues:
Finally, the Office asserts that Penilla teaches performing the charging/discharging with a charging station based on the updated schedule. Again, Applicant disagrees. Although Penilla references scheduled charging behavior, it does so in connection with static time windows or station-based discounts, not based on a fee policy delivered in response to a detected area code transition.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 100 states:
[0100] […]Users needing charge out in the field can access the network and obtain the best charge location availability and discounts based on user's predefined settings, or based on the profile of the user (e.g., including preferences set by the user and preferences that are leaned based on the user's past actions, or based on recommendations of similar drivers). In some embodiments, users looking for charge can be provided with several paths to CUIPs, where particular paths provide different types of promotions. Based on the type of promotion desired by the user, the path can be generated and presented to the user. In still another embodiment, if the user decides to accept a path, the CUIP can provide availability at the CUIP and the user can reserve a CU at the CUIP.
[0101] Still further, the user's profile can include predefined payment options, so that the user can reserve a CU, arrive at the CU, obtain charge, and pay for the charge or services automatically via an electronic transaction with the CU and the cloud services […]
[0104] […]On one embodiment, an intelligent path generation unit (PGU) can collect information regarding the discounts or promotions offered by the various CUIPs, and based on that data, a route can be automatically generated for electric vehicle (EV) drivers based on their driving paths or mapped driving routs
[0113] […] Tracking a vehicle in anonymous mode will allow users to be notified of special deals or promotions in the vicinity of the vehicle as the user drives around […]
[0140] […] Providers of charge and related merchants where the CUs are proximate thereto, can access the database so that charge discounts can be provided to drivers. For example, the fact that the user, who may be registered, drives a particular path will be used by a CU provider to populate discounts to the user. In one embodiment, CUs may not be directly along the path, such as CUs E, F and G, but if one of those CUs provide enough incentive, the time to go off-path will be a benefit. Further, as the user drives along and the charge level changes, certain ones of CUs can populate discounts or prices to the user, as the user drives near a CU that is in proximity to the user who needs charge. Other dynamic updates on available CUs and discounts, based on the position of a user along a path are possible.
Thus a user accepts a computer-generated path and makes a reservation for the vehicle at the charge point based on the received updated charging/discharge fee rate policy (including prices and promotions). Examiner notes that claim 1 doesn’t even require that this step be done by a computer. With respect to claim 12, the generating or updating is done by the processor but it is not clear that the “based on” qualification indicates that a determination made by the processor or determinations made by the user. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to indicate that a user’s choice based on the information that results in a computer generated update would qualify. This scheduling (reservation) being done on price information that is received corresponding to the new area code (see response to arguments above) qualifies as an update based on the fee rate policy corresponding to the new area code.
With respect to the separate arguments for claim 12, Examiner notes that a new rejection in view of the new claim amendments has been made over Klabjan.
With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 2, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The entry or exit into or out of a power grid area is determined according the vehicle’s path which is monitored.
With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 3, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant is arguing unclaimed features. There is no limitation in claim 3 regarding “time-of-use periods” or “optimization” over those periods.
With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 7, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that updating the schedule according to a user’s travel plans as taught by Penilla meets the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Penilla et al. US PGPUB 2018/0111494.
Regarding claim 1, Penilla discloses a method for charging/discharging an electric vehicle [fig. 1], the method comprising:
determining whether the electric vehicle has passed a power grid border during travel [pars. 54, 55 & 114; information is tracked regarding when an EV enters or leaves a grid area, thus a power grid border];
transmitting information on a current travel path and information of a current area code to a server in response to a determination that the electric vehicle has passed the power grid border [fig. 3; par. 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207; information is tracked regarding the current location of the vehicles and current/historical paths, this can be tracked and transmitted in real time, thus including when a vehicle passes a grid border; the current route of the vehicle can be transmitter to a server (par. 104-105 & 140) to allow the system to determine charge units (CUIP) along the way];
receiving an area code update request message comprising information on a new area code and a charging/discharging fee rate policy corresponding to the new area code from the server [fig. 3; par. 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207; the prices at various charge units along the route that the user is traveling can be provided and updated as the user travels to a new area (par. 114)];
updating a charging/discharging schedule based on the charging/discharging fee rate policy corresponding to the new area code [par. 100-101, 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140 & 207; a schedule for charging a EV can be updated based on the current and planned route, which is associated with charging sessions at particular charge units in the route]; and
performing the charging/discharging with a charging station based on the updated charging/discharging schedule [par. 100-101, 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207 & 210-212; charging is executed based on a reservation].
Regarding claim 2, Penilla discloses wherein the new area code is determined based on the current travel path [fig. 3; par. 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207; entering into a new area is determined based on the current travel path based on tracking the vehicle].
Regarding claim 3, Penilla discloses wherein the updating of the charging/discharging schedule includes:
determining available charging/discharging time periods [par. 102, 240 & 255; available charging slots]; and
determining a charging/discharging time period leading to an optimal fee based on a charging/discharging fee rate corresponding to the new area code of the determined available charging/discharging time periods [pars. 100, 122, 153, 257 & 262-263; optimal charging slots at particular stations are used to create an optimal route for particular charging times at particular charging stations in certain areas, thus an optimal fee can be determined according to dynamically added discounts].
Regarding claim 7, Penilla discloses wherein the charging/discharging schedule is updated further based on at least one of a future travel plan set by a user [par. 100-101, 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207 & 210-212; the charging schedule can be updated based on a user’s travel plans (par. 105, 248 & 254)], a pre-analyzed travel pattern, and a current battery charged state.
Regarding claim 8, Penilla discloses further comprising:
transmitting vehicle state information to the server [fig. 1; par. 112, 114 & 117, data acquisition interface 10 receives data from EVs which can be used to learn patterns and recommend new routes]; and
receiving, from the server, the pre-analyzed travel pattern based on the vehicle state information [pars. 99, 112, 114 & 117; the vehicle data can be used to determine historical actions (pre-analyzed travel pattern) and provide data to drivers or other cloud-based services], wherein the vehicle state information includes at least one of location information of the electric vehicle [pars. 112, 114 & 117], information on a travel path set in the navigation system, information on the battery charged state, information on a travel speed, information on a road where the electric vehicle is traveling, information on battery power consumed per unit time, and information on preferred power grid and/or charging station of the user.
Regarding claim 11, Penilla discloses wherein the charging/discharging fee rate policy corresponding to the new area code is dynamically updated based on power consumption statistics information for each time period in units of quarters/months/weeks/days of a country corresponding to the corresponding area code [pars. 109, 122, 138, 139, 176; the charging discharge fee can updated daily or intradaily depending on what route the vehicle takes through which parts of the grid (pars. 114-115)], further comprising:
receiving, from the server, a charging/discharging fee rate update request message containing information on the charging/discharging fee rate policy updated corresponding to the new area code [fig. 3; par. 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207; the prices at various charge units along the route that the user is traveling can be provided and updated as the user travels to a new area (par. 114)].
Regarding claim 13, Penilla discloses an electric vehicle comprising:
a battery [fig. 1, EVs];
a navigation system for setting a travel path in response to an input of a user;
a vehicle communication terminal in communication with an external device via a network [pars. 97; the vehicle has a processor and communication circuitry for accessing and interfacing with the network applications];
an electric vehicle charging controller configured to control charging and discharging of the battery [pars. 94-95, 138, 176 & 202; the vehicle computer can control when charging is allowed and discharging through the use of the vehicle; fig. 26, charging unit computer of the vehicle allows communication via the network interface with “other vehicle charging pads” (fig. 26 and description appears to indicate the functions of the “charging unit (CU) computer” as being either in the vehicle or in the charging station pad, however, in either case the vehicle computer allows or doesn’t allow automatic charging, thus controls charging]]; and
a charging/discharging device for charging or discharging the battery in association with a charging station under the control of the electric vehicle charging controller [pars. 95-96; fig. 26; charging surface of the vehicle; pars. 202-210], wherein the electric vehicle charging controller is configured to perform control to:
determine whether the electric vehicle has passed a power grid border in association with the navigation system during travel [pars. 54, 55 & 114; information is tracked regarding when an EV enters or leaves a grid area, thus a power grid border; the information is recorded by the EV using GPS (par. 113-116 & 207), thus known by the EV controller, and furthermore known by communication with the cloud system (pars. 113-116)];
transmit information on a current travel path and information of a current area code to a server in response to a determination that the electric vehicle has passed the power grid border [fig. 3; par. 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207; information is tracked regarding the current location of the vehicles and current/historical paths, this can be tracked and transmitted in real time, thus including when a vehicle passes a grid border; the current route of the vehicle can be transmitter to a server (par. 104-105 & 140) to allow the system to determine charge units (CUIP) along the way];
receive an area code update request message containing information on a new area code and a charging/discharging fee rate policy corresponding to the new area code from the server [fig. 3; par. 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207; the prices at various charge units along the route that the user is traveling can be provided and updated as the user travels to a new area (par. 114)];
update a charging/discharging schedule based on the charging/discharging fee rate policy corresponding to the new area code [par. 100-101, 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140 & 207; a schedule for charging a EV can be updated based on the current and planned route, which is associated with charging sessions at particular charge units in the route]; and
perform the charging/discharging with the charging station based on the updated charging/discharging schedule [par. 100-101, 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207 & 210-212; charging is executed based on a reservation].
Regarding claim 14, Penilla discloses wherein the new area code is determined based on the current travel path [fig. 3; par. 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207; entering into a new area is determined based on the current travel path based on tracking the vehicle], wherein the electric vehicle charging controller is configured to:
determine available charging/discharging time periods [par. 102, 240 & 255; available charging slots]; and
determine a charging/discharging time period leading to an optimal fee based on a charging/discharging fee rate corresponding to the new area code of the determined available charging/discharging time periods [pars. 100, 122, 153, 257 & 262-263; optimal charging slots at particular stations are used to create an optimal route for particular charging times at particular charging stations in certain areas, thus an optimal fee can be determined according to dynamically added discounts].
Regarding claim 17, Penilla discloses wherein the charging/discharging schedule is updated further based on at least one of a future travel plan set by the user [par. 100-101, 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207 & 210-212; the charging schedule can be updated based on a user’s travel plans (par. 105, 248 & 254)], a pre-analyzed travel pattern, and a current battery charged state.
Regarding claim 18, Penilla discloses wherein the electric vehicle charging controller is configured to:
transmit vehicle state information to the server [fig. 1; par. 112, 114 & 117, data acquisition interface 10 receives data from EVs which can be used to learn patterns and recommend new routes]; and
receive, from the server, the pre-analyzed travel pattern based on the vehicle state information [pars. 99, 112, 114 & 117; the vehicle data can be used to determine historical actions (pre-analyzed travel pattern) and provide data to drivers or other cloud-based services], wherein the vehicle state information includes at least one of location information of the electric vehicle [pars. 112, 114 & 117], information on a travel path set in the navigation system, information on the battery charged state, information on a travel speed, information on a road where the electric vehicle is traveling, information on battery power consumed per unit time, and information on preferred power grid and/or charging station of the user.
Regarding claim 20, Penilla discloses wherein the charging/discharging fee rate policy corresponding to the new area code is dynamically updated based on power consumption statistics information for each time period in units of at least one of quarters, months, weeks, and days of a country corresponding to the corresponding area code [pars. 109, 122, 138, 139, 176; the charging discharge fee can updated daily or intradaily depending on what route the vehicle takes through which parts of the grid (pars. 114-115)], and wherein the electric vehicle charging controller is configured to:
receive, from the server, a charging/discharging fee rate update request message containing information on the charging/discharging fee rate policy updated corresponding to the new area code to update the charging/discharging schedule [fig. 3; par. 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207; the prices at various charge units along the route that the user is traveling can be provided and updated as the user travels to a new area (par. 114)].
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla et al. US PGPUB 2018/0111494 in view of Shimizu et al. US PGPUB 2015/0283912.
Regarding claim 4, Penilla does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining of the charging/discharging time period leading to the optimal fee includes: determining a discharging time period leading to a maximum fee corresponding to the determined available charging/discharging time periods; and determining a charging time period leading to a minimum fee corresponding to the determined available charging/discharging time periods.
However, Shimizu discloses an electric vehicle charging system [fig. 1] wherein the determining of the charging/discharging time period leading to the optimal fee includes: determining a discharging time period leading to a maximum fee corresponding to the determined available charging/discharging time periods; and determining a charging time period leading to a minimum fee corresponding to the determined available charging/discharging time periods [par. 85; determining the time slot for charging/discharging such that the vehicle user receives the maximum reward].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penilla to further include wherein the determining of the charging/discharging time period leading to the optimal fee includes: determining a discharging time period leading to a maximum fee corresponding to the determined available charging/discharging time periods; and determining a charging time period leading to a minimum fee corresponding to the determined available charging/discharging time periods for the purpose of maximizing the reward or minimizing the cost for a user, as taught by Shimizu (par. 85).
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla et al. US PGPUB 2018/0111494 in view of Shimizu et al. US PGPUB 2015/0283912, and further in view of Nishita et al. US PGPUB 2022/0048399.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Penilla and Shimizu does not explicitly disclose further comprising: generating a charging/discharging scheduling table based on the determined discharging time period and the determined charging time period.
However, Nishita discloses an electric vehicle charging system [abs.; fig. 1] generating a charging/discharging scheduling table based on the determined discharging time period and the determined charging time period [fig. 33; par. 215].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Penilla and Shimizu to further include generating a charging/discharging scheduling table based on the determined discharging time period and the determined charging time period for the purpose of illustrating the usage schedule, as taught by Nishita (pars. 214-217).
Regarding claim 6, Nishita as applied in claim 5 further discloses wherein the charging/discharging scheduling table comprising at least one of:
a fee rate field indicating a fee rate for each time period [fig. 33];
a mode field indicating a time period to be in a discharging mode, a discharging start time period, a time period to be in a charging mode, and a charging start time period;
a charging/discharging flag field indicating whether actual discharging or charging has been performed in a corresponding time period; and
a deposit and withdrawal state field indicating whether deposit or withdrawal of a fee to or from a user account has been completed for the discharging or the charging performed in the corresponding time period.
Regarding claim 15, Penilla does not explicitly disclose wherein the electric vehicle charging controller is configured to: determine a discharging time period leading to a maximum fee corresponding to the determined available charging/discharging time periods, determine the charging/discharging time period leading to the optimal fee based on determining a charging time period leading to a minimum fee corresponding to the determined available charging/discharging time periods, and generate a charging/discharging scheduling table based on the determined discharging time period and the determined charging time period.
However, Shimizu discloses an electric vehicle charging system [fig. 1] wherein the electric vehicle charging controller is configured to: determine a discharging time period leading to a maximum fee corresponding to the determined available charging/discharging time periods, determine the charging/discharging time period leading to the optimal fee based on determining a charging time period leading to a minimum fee corresponding to the determined available charging/discharging time periods [par. 85; determining the time slot for charging/discharging such that the vehicle user receives the maximum reward].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penilla to further include wherein the electric vehicle charging controller is configured to: determine a discharging time period leading to a maximum fee corresponding to the determined available charging/discharging time periods, determine the charging/discharging time period leading to the optimal fee based on determining a charging time period leading to a minimum fee corresponding to the determined available charging/discharging time periods for the purpose of maximizing the reward or minimizing the cost for a user, as taught by Shimizu (par. 85).
The combination of Penilla and Shimizu does not explicitly disclose generating a charging/discharging scheduling table based on the determined discharging time period and the determined charging time period.
However, Nishita discloses an electric vehicle charging system [abs.; fig. 1] generating a charging/discharging scheduling table based on the determined discharging time period and the determined charging time period [fig. 33; par. 215].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Penilla and Shimizu to further include generating a charging/discharging scheduling table based on the determined discharging time period and the determined charging time period for the purpose of illustrating the usage schedule, as taught by Nishita (pars. 214-217).
Regarding claim 16, Penilla does not explicitly disclose wherein the charging/discharging scheduling table contains at least one of:
a fee rate field indicating a fee rate for each time period;
a mode field indicating a time period to be in a discharging mode, a discharging start time period, a time period to be in a charging mode, and a charging start time period;
a charging/discharging flag field indicating whether actual discharging or charging has been performed in a corresponding time period; and
a deposit and withdrawal state field indicating whether deposit or withdrawal of a fee to or from a user account has been completed for the discharging or the charging performed in the corresponding time period.
However, Nishita as applied in claim 15 discloses wherein the charging/discharging scheduling table contains at least one of:
a fee rate field indicating a fee rate for each time period [fig. 33];
a mode field indicating a time period to be in a discharging mode, a discharging start time period, a time period to be in a charging mode, and a charging start time period;
a charging/discharging flag field indicating whether actual discharging or charging has been performed in a corresponding time period; and
a deposit and withdrawal state field indicating whether deposit or withdrawal of a fee to or from a user account has been completed for the discharging or the charging performed in the corresponding time period.
Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla et al. US PGPUB 2018/0111494 in view of Beaver et al. US PGPUB 2018/0337548.
Regarding claim 9, Penilla disclose further comprising: receiving at least one system parameter, from at least one of the charging station and the server, corresponding to the new area code [fig. 3; par. 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207; the prices at various charge units along the route that the user is traveling can be provided and updated as the user travels to a new area (par. 114) as well as availability of charging points (par. 105)];
Penilla does not explicitly disclose correcting the received at least one system parameter based on a result of measurement for a power signal received from the charging station.
However, Beaver discloses an electric vehicle charging system [abs.; fig. 1] which corrects the received at least one system parameter based on a result of measurement for a power signal received from the charging station [par. 38, 62 & 67; an error signal is generated and used to correct the measured operating frequency to a desired operating frequency].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penilla to further include correcting the received at least one system parameter based on a result of measurement for a power signal received from the charging station for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of energy transfer by correcting power and frequency values, as taught by Beaver (par. 41).
Regarding claim 10, Beaver as applied in claim 9 discloses wherein the at least one system parameter include an operating frequency value and an active power value [par. 67], further comprising: correcting an operating frequency by comparing the received operating frequency value with an operating frequency value actually measured from the received power signal [par. 38; correcting the measured frequency to the operating frequency]; and correcting an active power by comparing the received active power value with an active power value actually measured from the received power signal [par. 67].
Regarding claim 19, Penilla discloses wherein the electric vehicle charging controller is configured to:
receive at least one system parameter, from at least one of the charging station and the server, corresponding to the new area code [fig. 3; par. 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207; the prices at various charge units along the route that the user is traveling can be provided and updated as the user travels to a new area (par. 114) as well as availability of charging points (par. 105)].
Penilla does not explicitly disclose correcting the received at least one system parameter based on a result of measurement for a power signal received from the charging station, wherein the at least one system parameter includes an operating frequency value and an active power value, wherein the electric vehicle charging controller is configured to: correct an operating frequency by comparing the received operating frequency value with an operating frequency value actually measured from the received power signal; and correct an active power by comparing the received active power value with an active power value actually measured from the received power signal.
However, Beaver discloses an electric vehicle charging system [abs.; fig. 1] which corrects the received at least one system parameter based on a result of measurement for a power signal received from the charging station [par. 38, 62 & 67; an error signal is generated and used to correct the measured operating frequency to a desired operating frequency], wherein the at least one system parameter includes an operating frequency value and an active power value [par. 67], wherein the electric vehicle charging controller is configured to: correct an operating frequency by comparing the received operating frequency value with an operating frequency value actually measured from the received power signal [par. 38; correcting the measured frequency to the operating frequency]; and correct an active power by comparing the received active power value with an active power value actually measured from the received power signal [par. 67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penilla to further include correcting the received at least one system parameter based on a result of measurement for a power signal received from the charging station, wherein the at least one system parameter includes an operating frequency value and an active power value, wherein the electric vehicle charging controller is configured to: correct an operating frequency by comparing the received operating frequency value with an operating frequency value actually measured from the received power signal; and correct an active power by comparing the received active power value with an active power value actually measured from the received power signal for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of energy transfer by correcting power and frequency values, as taught by Beaver (par. 41).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla et al. US PGPUB 2018/0111494 in view of Klabjan US PGPUB 2012/0203726.
Regarding claim 12, Penilla discloses a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium for storing at least one computer program including instructions for, when executed by at least one processor, causing the at least one processor to perform charging/discharging operations in an electric vehicle [par. 66-67, 110, 220, 241, 277, 284 & 286; the operations of Penilla can be performs by computer program executed by processors which results in the vehicle being charged at a charge station (thus a processor performing “charging/discharging operations in an electric vehicle”)]; wherein the operations comprising:
determining, based on a navigation path or positioning data. whether the electric vehicle has passed a power grid border that demarcates a boundary between distinct power grid area [pars. 54, 55, 105, 114 & 119; information is tracked regarding when an EV enters or leaves a grid area, thus a power grid border; for a vehicle to “leave” one grid area “and” “enter” a different grid area, a border must exist demarcating the power grid areas];
transmitting information on a current travel path and a current area code associated with the current power arid jurisdiction to a server in response to a determination that the electric vehicle has passed the power grid border [fig. 3; par. 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207; information is tracked regarding the current location of the vehicles and current/historical paths, this can be tracked and transmitted in real time, thus including when a vehicle passes a grid border; the current route of the vehicle can be transmitter to a server (par. 104-105 & 140) to allow the system to determine charge units (CUIP) along the way];
receiving, from the server, an area code update request message containing information on a new area code corresponding to a different power grid jurisdiction and a charging/discharging fee rate policy associated with the new area code [fig. 3; par. 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207; the prices at various charge units along the route that the user is traveling can be provided and updated as the user travels to a new area (par. 114)];
generating or updating a time-based charging/discharging schedule based on the received charging/discharging fee rate policy corresponding to the new area code [par. 100-101, 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140 & 207; a schedule for charging a EV can be updated based on the current and planned route, which is associated with charging sessions at particular charge units in the route]; and
performing the charging/discharging with a charging station based on the updated charging/discharging schedule [par. 100-101, 104-105, 113-114, 119, 140, 207 & 210-212; charging is executed based on a reservation].
Penilla does not explicitly disclose power grid jurisdictions.
However, Klabjan discloses an electric vehicle charging system which plans charging for vehicles based on a plurality of power grid jurisdictions [pars. 9, 24, 28; fig. 2 & 5; power distribution is determined according to jurisdictions which may be zip codes or states (par. 24), thus power grid jurisdictions].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penilla to further include power grid jurisdictions for the purpose of delineating a country at the national level and regional level, as taught by Klabjan (par. 24).
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 DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
DAVID V. HENZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859