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 05/26/2023 claims 7-13 are pending. Claim s 1-6 are cancelled. Claims 7, 12, and 13 are independent. Drawings The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 1 the applicant uses boxes to illustrate structural components. These alone do not facilitate understanding of the drawings . To overcome this objection, the applicant should add more details in the drawings (e.g., clear symbols, text in the boxes, arrows with text coming off, or a legend in the drawings). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 7-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 13 of claim 7 , add --known as received values-- after “memory” in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. Claims 12-13 are objected to for the same reason. In line 16 of claim 7 , add --, known as determined values,-- before when in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue . Claims 12-13 are objected to for the same reason. In line 19 of claim 7 , add --received-- before “values read” in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. Claims 12 and 13 are objected to for the same reason as claim 7. In line 2 of claim 8 , add two instances of --the-- so that it reads “the determined values or the received values” in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue . Rewrite lines 4-6 of claim 8 to improve reading comprehension and correct multiple lack of antecedent issues. The examiner suggests the following “the processor notifies the higher-level control device of a last received and stored value from the in-vehicle control device at a timing when the data on the charging and discharging of the in-vehicle storage battery needs to be notified.” In line 2 of claim 9 , add --received-- in front of “values” in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. In line 4 of claim 9 , add --determined-- before “values determined” and add --received-- before “values stored” in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis. In line 4 of claim 10 , add --known as the determined values-- before “according” in order to clarify these are for “the determined values” and avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. In line 4 of claim 11 , add --known as the determined values-- before “according” in order to clarify these are for “the determined values” and avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. In line 1 of claim 13 , add --non-transitory-- in front of “computer” due to the limitation being directed to non-statutory subject matter . The applicant has support for this language in ¶[27] of the specification. The examiner will interpret the objected limitations as recommended for examination purposes below, however, a ppropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 7 is directed towards an apparatus, claim 12 is directed towards a method, and claim 13 is directed towards a computer readable medium , as identified in Step 1. The claim s recite receiving/transmitting information, storing information, and determining information which are considered exceptions because the limitations fall under mental processes grouping of the abstract ideas which may be performed mentally by an individual, as identified in Step 2A Prong 1. These limitations are considered mental processes because an individual may look at the data, make determinations based on the data, and relay the information to another individual in the determination process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Mental Processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of the abstract ideas with a processing circuitry [generic] with insignificant, extra-solution activities (a) receiving/transmitting data, (b) storing data, and (c) determining data does not make it practical, as identified in Step 2A Prong 2 . The claim s do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processing circuitry is only used to receive/transmit, store, and determine the abstract ideas with no additional practical use added as a limitation, as identified in step 2B . Furthermore, notifying is more than the abstract idea, however, it is considered an insignificant post solution activity. Dependent claims 8-11 are rejected because they only further the abstract idea without additional practical use or significant structure. Claim 8 further limits the type of store d values and reports these to the EMS at a timing interval. Claim 9 further differentiates the received values versus the determined values. Claim 10 further defines the values based on vehicle characteristics. Claim 11 further defines the values based on if the vehicle is charge-only. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “computer readable medium” encompasses signals per se . A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II). The applicant is advised to amend claim 13 to add --non-transitory-- in front of “computer readable medium”. The applicant has support for this language in ¶[27] of the specification. 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duckheim et al. (German Patent DE-102013211265-A1; identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the European Search Opinion dated 09/25/2024 ) and further in view of Yamane et al. (Japanese Patent JP-2012253976-A; identified by the applicant in the IDS and cited in the International Search Report (ISR) dated 01/25/2022) . With respect to independent claims 7, 12, and 13 , Duckheim teaches a charging device (Fig. 1 ; a charging station 2) . Duckheim teaches a connector for connecting to an in-vehicle power line connected to an in-vehicle storage battery (Fig. 1 ; a wired connection 5 connects to an electric vehicle 3. ¶[07-08] ; the electric vehicle 3 contains an energy storage device (not illustrated). One of ordinary skill understands the energy storage device of the electric vehicle 3 is electrically connected to the charging station 2 via the wired connection 5) . Duckheim teaches one or more processors that processes to control charging in the in-vehicle storage battery (Fig. 2 , ¶[07] ; a control device 11 configured to control a charging process of the energy storage device of the electric vehicle 3 ) . Duckheim teaches a memory that stores rewritable data used by the processor (Fig. 2 , ¶[57] ; a storage device 13 that stores data used by the control device 11) . Duckheim teaches a communication unit that communicates with an in-vehicle control device through the connector (Fig. 1 , ¶[43] ; a data exchange 6 occurs between the charging station 2 and the electric vehicle 3 using the industry standard protocol IEC 61851-23/24 through the wired connection 5. One of ordinary skill understands a communication unit communicates with an in-vehicle control device) . Duckheim teaches a higher-level communication unit that communicates with a higher-level control device ( Fig. 1 , ¶[44] ; the charging station 2 is connected to an energy management device 1 via a communication interface 7) . Duckheim teaches wherein the processor stores at least one of minimum and maximum values of each of a charging power value and a charging current value in the memory ( Fig. 2 , ¶[4 8 ] ; a maximum charging power and a maximum charging current may be received as a sensed parameter by the receiving device 10 which is then stored in storage device 12 due to its direct connection with the receiving device 10 as illustrated in Fig. 2 ) . Duckheim teaches the processor determines at least one of minimum and maximum values of each of a charging power value and a charging current value when performing charging with the in-vehicle storage battery, based on data transmitted to and from the in-vehicle control device for controlling charging ( ¶[48] ; a maximum charging power and a maximum charging current are specified (i.e., determined) based on the data received by the receiving device 10 for controlling charging. One of ordinary skill understands this is the data transmitted to and from the in-vehicle control device via the data exchange 6 ) . Duckheim teaches the processor notifies the higher-level control device of either the determined values or the values read from the memory ( Figs. 1-2 and 6, ¶[55] ; the control device 11 notifies the energy management device 1 ) . However, Duckheim fails to explicitly teach a charging and discharging device and control charging and discharging . Yamane teaches a charging and discharging device and control charging and discharging (¶[01]; a charging/discharging control device and method) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Duckheim’s energy management system to Yamane’s charging/discharging control device in order to have a system that is capable to also control discharging of the vehicle via a control interface with the energy management system controller which takes into consideration vehicle characteristics . The advantage to this being that the energy management system controller could account for vehicle characteristics when determining appropriate charging and discharging rates in order to improve system response (see ¶[06-08] of Yamane). With respect to claim 8 , Duckheim teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Duckheim teaches wherein the processor stores determined values or received values for charging of the in-vehicle storage battery and the processor notifies the last received and stored values from the in-vehicle control device at the timing when data on the charging of the in-vehicle storage battery needs to be notified to the higher-level control device (Fig. 6, ¶[48 and 55]; data values may be received from the sensed parameters or they may be specified (i.e., determined) by the processor in time intervals when data on the charging of the energy storage device of the vehicle needs to be notified by the energy management device 11 as illustrated in Fig. 6) . With respect to claim 9 , Duckheim teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Duckheim teaches wherein the values stored in the memory are predetermined values of the charging device, and the values determined by the processor and the values stored in the memory are different (¶[48]; values received and stored in memory are different than the values specified (i.e., determined) by the control device 11) . With respect to claim 10 , Duckheim teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Duckheim teaches wherein the processor determines at least one of the minimum and maximum values of each of the charging power value and the charging current value (¶[48]; a maximum charging power and a maximum charging current are specified (i.e., determined) based on the data received by the receiving device 10 for controlling charging) . However, Duckheim fails to explicitly teach the values are determined according to characteristics of the vehicle. Yamane teaches the values are determined according to characteristics of the vehicle (¶[06-07]; charge/discharge rate values are determined based on the characteristics of the vehicle) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Duckheim’s energy management system to Yamane’s charging/discharging control device in order to have a system that is capable to also control discharging of the vehicle via a control interface with the energy management system controller which takes into consideration vehicle characteristics. The advantage to this being that the energy management system controller could account for vehicle characteristics when determining appropriate charging and discharging rates in order to improve system response (see ¶[06-08] of Yamane). With respect to claim 11 , Duckheim teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, Duckheim teaches wherein the processor determines at least one of the minimum and maximum values of each of the charging power value and the charging current value ( ¶[48]; a maximum charging power and a maximum charging current are specified (i.e., determined) based on the data received by the receiving device 10 for controlling charging ) . Duckheim teaches notifying the higher-level control device of either the determined values or the values read from the memory ( Figs. 1-2 and 6, ¶[55]; the control device 11 notifies the energy management device 1 ) . Duckheim teaches based on data transmitted to and from the in-vehicle control device (Fig. 2, ¶[48]; data values may be received from the sensed parameters via the data exchange 6 which are obtained from the vehicle’s controller) . However, Duckheim fails to explicitly teach according to whether or not the vehicle is a charge-only vehicle ; and a discharging current value when performing charging and discharging with the in-vehicle storage battery . Yamane teaches according to whether or not the vehicle is a charge-only vehicle ( ¶[06]; the characteristics are considered according to manufacturer, model, etc. of the electric vehicle in which one of ordinary skill understands includes charge-only vehicles ) . Yamane teaches a discharging current value when performing charging and discharging with the in-vehicle storage battery ( ¶[06-07]; charge/discharge rate values are determined based on the characteristics of the vehicle in which one of ordinary skill understands includes a discharging current value ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Duckheim’s energy management system to Yamane’s charging/discharging control device in order to have a system that is capable to also control discharging of the vehicle via a control interface with the energy management system controller which takes into consideration vehicle characteristics. The advantage to this being that the energy management system controller could account for vehicle characteristics when determining appropriate charging and discharging rates in order to improve system response (see ¶[06-08] of Yamane). Relevant Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following were identified by the applicant in the IDS, however they were not cited for examination purposes: US 10710460 B2 US 20220250498 A1 WO 2022118681 A1 WO 2010082506 A1 JP 2020191774 A Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Frank A Silva whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1698 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Drew Dunn can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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