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 Preliminary Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of preliminary amendment to application 18/076,358 received February 15, 2024. Claims 1-11 are amended, and claims 12-15 are newly added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there is a typographical error in box 606 of Fig. 6; change “supercapacito” to “supercapacitor”. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 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 1-3, 6-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al. U.S. PGPub 2019/0202385 A1 (hereinafter Lo) in view of Dudar et al. U.S. PGPub 2018/0283887 A1 (hereinafter Dudar).
Regarding Claims 1, 6 and 11, Lo teaches a system, a method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with programmed instructions for charging one or more supercapacitors of a vehicle (Lo, Fig. 3, Element 110; Abstract and Para. [0088], Lines 3-4) using solar energy (Lo, Fig. 3, Element 170; Para. [0119], Where the external charger provides power provided by a vehicle roof top solar panel.), the system comprising: one or more sensors (Lo, Paras. [0098], Lines 7-14, Not illustrated in the drawings.); a processor (Lo, Fig. 3, Element 150; Para. [0081], “energy management controller”) that executes instructions stored in the memory (Lo, Paras. [0090] – [0093], and [0098]), wherein the processor executes the instructions to: analyze measurements from the one or more sensors to identify a charging efficiency (Lo, Fig. 3, Element 150; Paras. [0103] – [0109], i.e. optimization) associated with the one or more solar panels (Lo, Fig. 3, Element 170; Para. [0119], When the vehicle roof top solar panel is providing the power of the external charger.); and generate, based on the charging efficiency and the historical data, charging generates instructions regarding charging of the one or more supercapacitors using the one or more solar panels during the current period (Lo, Paras. [0090] – [0093]); and a communication interface that sends the charging instructions (Lo, Fig. 3, Element 150; Paras. [0081] and [0103] – [0109], “energy management controller”) to a controller associated with the one or more solar panels (Lo, Fig. 3, Element 140; Paras. [0081] – [0082] and [0111] – [0112], “charge balancing controller”, When the vehicle roof top solar panel is providing the power of the external charger.), wherein the controller executes the charging instructions to initiate the charging of the one or more supercapacitors using the one or more solar panels (Lo, Paras. [0090] – [0093], and [0098], When the vehicle roof top solar panel is providing the power of the external charger.), but does not explicitly teach a memory that stores historical data regarding light intensity and solar actions, and sensors configured to measure current light intensity in a surrounding environment of one or more solar panels.
Dudar, however, teaches a vehicle (Dudar, Fig. 1, Element 12) using solar energy (Dudar, Fig. 1, Element 38, “Photovoltaic Charge Device”; Para. [0037]), the system comprising: a memory (Dudar, Fig. 1, Element 22) that stores historical data regarding light intensity and solar actions (Dudar, Para. [0056]); one or more sensors (Dudar, Fig. 1, Element 44) configured to measure current light intensity in a surrounding environment of one or more solar panels (Dudar, Para. [0054]) wherein the processor executes the instructions (Dudar, Fig. 1, Elements 10/20; Paras. [0013], [0043] and [0080]) to: analyze one or more light intensity measurements from the one or more sensors (Dudar, Paras. [0056] – [0064]) wherein the one or more light intensity measurements are from a current period (Dudar, Para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Lo is silent as to the details of using the solar roof panel as the power to charge the battery of the vehicle, i.e. sensing the strength of the incoming light, comparing the sensed amount of light to data stored in a database, etc., Lo would inherently incorporate some type of conventional solar power management commonly understood in the art. The solar power management taught by Dudar, for controlling the charging of the rechargeable battery with the solar power, teaches one of the many conventional solar power management systems utilized in the art for charging a battery of a vehicle using solar power. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Dudar, to control the solar charge of the vehicle’s power source within the supercapacitor charge system of Lo.
Regarding Claims 2, 7 and 12, The combined teaching of the Lo and Dudar references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1, 6 and 11. Furthermore, Dudar teaches wherein the communication interface further receives geolocation data from a global positioning system (GPS) of the vehicle (Dudar, Paras. [0035] and [0041]), and wherein the charging instructions are also based on the geolocation data (Dudar, Paras. [0043] and [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Lo is silent as to the details of using the solar roof panel as the power to charge the battery of the vehicle, i.e. saved information in memory, access to external databases, sensing the strength of the incoming light, comparing the sensed amount of light to data stored in a database, etc., Lo would inherently incorporate some type of conventional solar power management commonly understood in the art. The solar power management taught by Dudar, for controlling the charging of the rechargeable battery with the solar power, teaches one of the many conventional solar power management systems utilized in the art for charging a battery of a vehicle using solar power. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Dudar, to control the solar charge of the vehicle’s power source within the supercapacitor charge system of Lo.
Regarding Claims 3, 8 and 13, The combined teaching of the Lo and Dudar references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1, 6 and 11. Furthermore, Dudar teaches wherein the communication interface further receives weather data from a weather database over a communication network, and wherein the charging instructions are also based on the weather data (Dudar, Paras. [0052] and [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Lo is silent as to the details of using the solar roof panel as the power to charge the battery of the vehicle, i.e. saved information in memory, access to external databases, sensing the strength of the incoming light, comparing the sensed amount of light to data stored in a database, etc., Lo would inherently incorporate some type of conventional solar power management commonly understood in the art. The solar power management taught by Dudar, for controlling the charging of the rechargeable battery with the solar power, teaches one of the many conventional solar power management systems utilized in the art for charging a battery of a vehicle using solar power. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Dudar, to control the solar charge of the vehicle’s power source within the supercapacitor charge system of Lo.
Claims 4-5, 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al. U.S. PGPub 2019/0202385 A1 (hereinafter Lo) in view of Dudar et al. U.S. PGPub 2018/0283887 A1 (hereinafter Dudar) as applied to claims 1, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Mattila U.S. PGPub 2017/0045888 A1 (hereinafter Mattila).
Regarding Claims 4, 9 and 14, The combined teaching of the Lo and Dudar references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1, 6 and 11, but does not explicitly teach charging is based on the shade level.
Mattila, however, teaches wherein the processor analyzes the one or more light intensity measurements from the one or more sensors (Mattila, Para. [0129], “ambient light detector”) to identify a shade level (Mattila, Para. [0009], “ambient light levels”, and Paras. [0120] – [0125]), wherein the charging efficiency is based on the shade level (Mattila, Paras. [0061], [0120] - [0122] and [0143]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Lo as modified by Dudar is silent as to the details of using the solar roof panel as the power to charge the battery of the vehicle, i.e. sensing the strength of the incoming light based on the amount of sunlight, comparing the sensed amount of light to data stored in a database, etc., Lo would inherently incorporate some type of conventional solar power management commonly understood in the art. The solar power management taught by Dudar, for controlling the charging of the rechargeable battery with the solar power, teaches one of the many conventional solar power management systems utilized in the art for charging a battery of a vehicle using solar power. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Dudar, to control the solar charge of the vehicle’s power source within the supercapacitor charge system of Lo.
Regarding Claims 5, 10 and 15, The combined teaching of the Lo, Dudar and Mattila references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 4/1, 9/6 and 14/11. Furthermore, Mattila teaches wherein the processor identifies the shade level based on a comparison between the one or more light intensity measurements and a predetermined light intensity threshold (Mattila, Para. [0122], Lines 4-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Lo as modified by Dudar is silent as to the details of using the solar roof panel as the power to charge the battery of the vehicle, i.e. sensing the strength of the incoming light based on the amount of sunlight, comparing the sensed amount of light to data stored in a database, etc., Lo would inherently incorporate some type of conventional solar power management commonly understood in the art. The solar power management taught by Dudar, for controlling the charging of the rechargeable battery with the solar power, teaches one of the many conventional solar power management systems utilized in the art for charging a battery of a vehicle using solar power. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Dudar, to control the solar charge of the vehicle’s power source within the supercapacitor charge system of Lo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miller et al. U.S. PGPub 2020/0070676 teaches an electric vehicle renewable energy charging system configured to increase efficiency of the charging.
Butler et al. U.S. PGPub 2016/0049819 teaches a system for charging one or more supercapacitors of an electric vehicle using solar power.
Sharifipour et al. U.S. PGPub 2022/0396167 teaches an electric vehicle solar charging system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY D ROBBINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7585. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 6:00PM Tuesday-Saturday.
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.
/JERRY D ROBBINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859