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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 3, “the existing power grid” should be – an existing power grid—
Claim 7, line 7, “transformer output” should be – a distribution transformer output—
Claim 7, line 8, “the charging direction” should be – a charging direction—
Claim 7, line 9, “multiple electrical vehicles and household loads” should be – the multiple electric vehicles and other household electrical loads—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for reporting Kilowatt consumption in claim 8, means for calculating single transformer current levels in claim 9, means for aggregating ( i.e. summing) current levels of the transformers in claim 9, and means for receiving and modulating charging levels based on regional current levels in claim 9.
Means for reporting Kilowatt consumption in claim 8 has been interpretated under 112(f) as charger based on page 6, para 2 of the specification.
Means for calculating single transformer current levels in claim 9 has been interpretated as current sensor based on page 4 para 2 of specification
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4.Claim 7-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “a single distribution transformer” on line 2 and “a distribution transformer” in line 4, “total current level of distribution transformers” in line 5-6, It is unclear a single distribution transformer and “a distribution transformer” in line 7, is the same transformer or not. For examination purpose, a distribution transformer in line 4 is interpretated as the single distribution transformer.
Claim 7, line 4-5, the system comprising: a distribution transformer…; calculating and aggregating total current levels of distribution transformer near other distribution transformer. It is unclear which component “calculating and aggregating total current levels of distribution transformers.” Also, it is unclear what is distribution transformers near other distribution transformers since claim only recites a distribution transformer before. For examination purpose, the limitation has been interpretated as “a device calculating and aggregating total current levels of other distribution transformers near the single distribution transformer”
Claim 8 are rejected because it depends on claim 7.
Claim 9, line 2-3 recites “means for calculating single transformer current levels and means for aggregating (i.e. summing) current levels of the transformers in the electrical network.” It is unclear the relationship between the single transformer current levels and current levels of the transformers.” For examination purpose, the limitation has been interpretated as “ means for calculating current levels of transformers in an electrical network and means for aggregating (i.e. summing) the current levels of the transformers in the electrical network.”
Claim limitation “means for aggregating ( i.e., summing) current levels of the transformers in claim 9 and claim limitation “means for receiving and modulating charging levels based on regional current levels” in claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of aggregating transformer current levels is performed by “aggregating.” There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the aggregating the transformer current levels. The use of the term “aggregating” is not adequate structure for performing the claimed function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “aggregating” refers adding/collecting in a whole and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
The specification also states the claimed function of receiving and modulating charging levels is performed by “receiving and modulating.” There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the receive and modulate the charging levels. The use of the term “receiving and modulating” is not adequate structure for performing the claimed function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “receiving and modulating” can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purpose, “means for aggregating (i.e. summing) current levels of the transformers “in claim 9 is interpretated as any known structure implemented in hardware, software, or combination of the two that aggregates the current levels of the transformers.
“Means for receiving and modulating charging levels” in claim 9 is interpretated as any known structure implemented in hardware, software, or combination of the two that receives and modulates charging levels.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “aggregating”, and the claim also recites (i.e., summing) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For Examination purpose, means for aggregating ( i.e., summing) is interpretated as means for aggregating.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of aggregating transformer current levels in claim 9; and Function of receiving and modulating charging levels based on regional current levels in claim 9. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. (FP 7.31.01
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
7.Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bemmel (US20120229089A1)
With regard to claim 9, Bemmel teaches a system providing monitoring and controlled charging of multiple electrical vehicles( 340, Fig. 3b) in a regional area, compromising: means for calculating single transformer current levels ( [0012]a system for measuring ..phase current of a pole transformer and a sensor at transformer) and means for aggregating (i.e. summing) current levels of the transformers ( [0059] aggregate the transformer load information and [0012] mentioned that current is a load parameter) in the electrical network, and means for receiving and modulating charging levels based on regional current levels (Fig. 3b. 310, 315, 325, see [0052], 310, 325 configured to get meter readings, see [0048] 325 control energy used by devices).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vukojevic (US20120229082A1) in view of Bemmel (US20120229089A1)
With regard to claim 7, Vukojevic teaches a system for providing controlled charging of multiple electric vehicles ( e.g., 40, 42, 44, 46, Fig. 1) and other household electrical loads ( residential loads, Fig. 1, [0003] on a single distribution transformer (62, Fig. 1) while preventing overloading the existing power grid (60, Fig. 1), the system comprising: a distribution transformer (62, Fig. 1) having current sensors ( e.g., 82, sense the load[0018] and see 112 in Fig. 2, load unit is kva, which is current), wireless communication controller (80, Fig. 1); calculating and aggregating total current levels near other distribution transformers for modulating the load and setting a controllable limit on transformer output ( e.g., 112, 130, 132, Fig. 2, check if the transformer current (total) loading exceed the maximum load rating, Fig. 2); and wherein the distribution transformer output is adapted to optimize the charging direction in terms of time ( see 138, Fig. 2, control the charge by the time) and total draw( e.g., 112, 130, 132, Fig. 2, check if the transformer current (total) loading exceed the maximum load rating, Fig. 2);, thereby controlling the charging of multiple electrical vehicles and household loads simultaneously ( see Fig. 1, the distribution transformer controls the charges of electrical vehicle 40, 42, 44, 46 and residential loads).
Vukojevic does not explicitly teach aggregating total current levels of distribution transformers near the other distribution transformers for modulating the load and setting a controllable limit on transformer output, a distribution transformer have a temperature sensor.
Bemmel teaches aggregating total current levels of distribution transformers near the other distribution transformers([0059] aggregate the transformer load information and [0012] mentioned that current is a load parameter, Fig. 3b shows information of plurality distribution transformers 335 are collected by 345 ) for modulating the load and setting a controllable limit on transformer output (Fig. 3b. 310, 315, 325, see [0052], 310, 325 configured to get meter readings, see [0048] 325 control energy used by devices, and 112, 130, 132 of Fig. 2 of Vukojevic teaches about a controllable limit on transformer output) a distribution transformer have a temperature sensor ( a system for measuring temperature of a pole transformer, [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vukojevic, to aggregating total current levels of distribution transformers near the other distribution transformers for modulating the load and setting a controllable limit on transformer output, as taught by Bemmel, in order to facilitate load distribution [0059]. And including the temperature sensor in the transformer taught by Bemmel can provide information to determine where a transformer might need to be upgraded [0012]
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vukojevic (US20120229082A1) and Bemmel (US20120229089A1)
in further view of Tate, JR (US 20100280675 A1)
With regard to claim 8 the combination of Vukojevic and Bemmel teaches all the limitation of claim 7, but not the system includes a charger for collecting kilowatt consumption and means for reporting kilowatt consumption.
However, Tate, JR. teaches a charger ( 11, 13, Fig. 1, 11 is the charger connector) for collecting kilowatt consumption ( [0013]An on-board electric power meter (M) 13 controls electric power flow and monitors and records cumulative electric power flow to the high-voltage battery 12, preferably in kilowatt-hours (kW-h)).and means for reporting kilowatt consumption ([0015] 13 reports kilowatt consumption to control module19) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 7, to includes a charger for collecting kilowatt consumption and means for reporting kilowatt consumption, as taught by Tate, JR, in order to control the power flow from the charger[0015].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Levy (US20120253567A1) teaches to schedule and regulate the charging of multiple electric vehicle batteries within a shared local power distribution network
Bridges (US20080040296A1) teaches about Electric Resource Power Meter in a Power Aggregation System for Distributed Electric Resources
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 PINPING SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-1284. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
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.
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights