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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 14-15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, Line 5; and Claim 15, Line2 recites the limitation “demuliplexer”. This appears to be a typo.
Claim 14, Line 5; and Claim 15, Line 2 should recite: demultiplexer.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the demultiplexer if a first demultiplexer” in Line 1.
Claim 14, Line 1 should recite: the demultiplexer is a first demultiplexer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4 and 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-6 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,260 in view of Perez et al. (2018/0358839).
Claim 1 is rejected over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,260.
Claim 4 of US Patent No. 11,518,260 contains the limitations of Claim 1 including a renewable energy collection device to collect renewable energy from a renewable source.
Claim 4 of US Patent No. 11,518,260 does not recite a power grid connection to receive energy from a power grid.
Perez teaches a system for charging vehicles (20) (Fig.1), the system comprising: a renewable energy collection device (44 and 52) to collect renewable energy from a renewable source (40 and 50) (Par.39); and a power grid connection to receive energy from a power grid (14) (Par.38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had modified Claim 4 of US Patent No. 11,518,260 as disclosed in Perez to have had provided power from the grid if the renewable sources are depleted (Par.41) thereby ensuring enough electricity is available to meet the power demand.
Claim 4 is rejected over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,260 in view of Perez.
Claim 4 of US Patent No. 11,518,260 does not recite wherein the power grid connection is configured to electrically connect the electrical energy storage bank to the power grid.
Perez teaches the power grid connection is configured to electrically connect an electrical energy storage bank (60) (Fig.1) to the power grid (14) (Par.40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had modified Claim 4 of US Patent No. 11,518,260 as disclosed in Perez to have had provided power from an energy storage bank when necessary (Par.39); and have had charged the energy storage bank from a power grid based on available power thereby optimizing the use of multiple power sources (Par.40).
Claim 6 corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,260.
Claim 7 corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,260.
Claim 8 corresponds to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,260.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,260 in view of Perez et al. (2018/0358839), and further in view of Gohla-Neudecker et al. (US 2020/0001730).
Claims 2-3 are rejected over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,260 in view of Perez.
The combination of Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,260 and Perez does not disclose wherein the power grid connection is configured to electrically connect the high-voltage capacitor to the power grid; further comprising a converter to convert the energy from the power grid into a form for receipt by the high-voltage capacitor.
Gohla-Neudecker teaches a power grid connection configured to electrically connect a high-voltage capacitor (19; dual-layer capacitor) (Fig.2) to a power grid (10) (Par.39); further comprising a converter (18’) to convert the energy from the power grid (10) into a form for receipt by the high-voltage capacitor (19; dual-layer capacitor) (Par.39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had modified the combination of Claim 4 of US Patent No. 11,518,260 in view of Perez as disclosed in Gohla-Neudecker to have had delivered a large electrical power to a motor vehicle, greater than the electrical power that can be provided by the grid (Par.10).
Claim 5 is rejected over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,260 in view of Perez.
The combination of Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,260 and Perez does not disclose wherein the power grid is connected to both of the high-voltage capacitor and the electrical energy storage bank.
Gohla-Neudecker discloses a power grid (10) (Fig.2) connected to both a high-voltage capacitor (19; dual-layer capacitor) and an electrical energy storage bank (19; batteries) (Par.39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had modified the combination of Claim 4 of US Patent No. 11,518,260 in view of Perez as disclosed in Gohla-Neudecker to have had been able to store enough electric energy (Par.23).
Claim 20 corresponds to claims 16 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,260.
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 9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perez et al. (2018/0358839).
Claim 9: Perez teaches a method of charging a battery of a vehicle (20), the method comprising: receiving at a charging system (10) (Fig.1) renewable electrical energy from one or more renewable energy sources (40 and 50) (Par.39);
determining that an additional amount of the electrical energy is needed (Par.41);
in response to determining that the additional electrical energy is needed, receiving at the charging system (10) additional electrical energy from a power grid (14) (Par.41); and
dispensing from the charging system (10) electrical energy comprising both the renewable electrical energy (40 and 50) and the additional electric energy and charging the battery of the vehicle (20) (Par.12, 37 and 41).
Claim 16: Perez teaches the limitations of claim 9 as disclosed above. Perez teaches further comprising converting the renewable electrical energy to a different form prior to dispensing the electrical energy (Par.39).
Claim 18: Perez teaches the limitations of claim 9 as disclosed above. Perez wherein receiving the renewable electrical energy from the one or more renewable energy sources comprises receiving the renewable electrical energy from at least one of solar power (40) and wind power (Par.39).
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.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (2018/0358839) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kaniki (US 2020/0160461).
Claims 10-11: Perez teaches the limitations of claim 9 as disclosed above. Perez does not explicitly teach further comprising directing the electrical energy to a demultiplexer prior to dispensing the electrical energy and charging the battery of the vehicle; wherein dispensing the electrical energy comprises dispensing a first portion of the electrical energy from the demultiplexer and charging the battery, the method further comprising directing a second portion of the electrical energy from the demultiplexer to an electrical energy storage bank that is separate from the battery of the vehicle.
Kaniki teaches comprising directing electrical energy to a demultiplexer (102) (Fig.1) prior to dispensing the electrical energy and charging a battery of a vehicle (104) (Par.27); wherein dispensing the electrical energy comprises dispensing a first portion of the electrical energy from the demultiplexer (10) and charging the battery (Par.27), the method further comprising directing a second portion of the electrical energy from the demultiplexer (102) to an electrical energy storage bank (101) that is separate from the battery of the vehicle (104) (Par.27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Kaniki in the system of Perez to have had directed an allocated desired energy between an energy source to one or more output destinations (Par.26-27).
Claim 12: Perez in view of Kaniki teaches the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Perez does not explicitly teach further comprising directing the first portion of the electrical energy to the battery prior to receiving the additional electrical energy.
Kaniki teaches further comprising directing the first portion of the electrical energy to the battery (104) prior to receiving additional electrical energy from the power grid (105) (Par.33 and 35; Receiving power from 107 prior to 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Kaniki in the system of Perez to have had utilized the most cost-effective energy source (Par.35).
Claim 13: Perez in view of Kaniki teaches the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Perez teaches further comprising receiving the additional electrical energy (from power grid 14) at the electrical energy storage device (60) (Par.40).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (2018/0358839) in view of Kaniki (US 2020/0160461) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Eldridge et al. (US 2020/0124683).
Claim 14-15: Perez in view of Kaniki teaches the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Perez in view of Kaniki does not discloses wherein the demultiplexer is a first demultiplexer, the method further comprising: directing the electrical energy from the electrical energy storage bank to a second demultiplexer; and dispending the electrical energy from the second demultiplexer to the battery of the vehicle; further comprising simultaneously directing the electrical energy from the first demultiplexer and the second demultiplexer to the battery.
Eldridge teaches dispensing electrical energy comprises dispensing a first portion of the electrical energy from a demultiplexer (8) (Fig.1) and charging an electric load (12) (Par.33); the demultiplexer (8) is a first demultiplexer, the method further comprising: directing the electrical energy from an electrical energy storage bank (10) to a second demultiplexer (6) (Par.33); and dispending the electrical energy from the second demultiplexer (6) to the electric load (12) (Par.33); further comprising simultaneously directing the electrical energy from the first demultiplexer (8) and the second demultiplexer (6) to the electric load (12) (Par.33) (Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Eldridge in the combination of Perez in view of Kaniki to have had distributed and metered first and second electric powers separately (Par.33) thereby improving power distribution operation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (2018/0358839) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Gohla-Neudecker et al. (US 2020/0001730).
Claim 17: Perez teaches the limitations of claim 16 as disclosed above. Perez does not explicitly teach further comprising receiving the additional electrical energy from the power grid at a high-voltage capacitor.
Gohla-Neudecker teaches receiving electrical energy from a power grid (10) (Fig.2) at a high-voltage capacitor (19; dual-layer capacitor) (Par.39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Gohla-Neudecker in the system of Perez to have had delivered a large electrical power to a motor vehicle, greater than the electrical power that can be provided by the grid (Par.10).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (2018/0358839) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Allison et al. (US 2019/0322189).
Claim 19: Perez teaches the limitations of claim 9 as disclosed above. Perez does not explicitly teach further comprising dispensing the electrical energy to the battery of the vehicle at a charging rate ranging between 100kWh to 100 MWh.
Allison teaches dispensing the electrical energy to a battery of a vehicle at a charging rate ranging between 100kWh to 100 MWh (Par.3; 1200kWh).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Allison in the system of Perez to have had charged a vehicle’s high power battery in a short amount of time (Par.3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859