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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Although the boxes in the figures are numbered which allows a correlation to each box as one reads the specification, the numbers by themselves do not allow one to quickly ascertain the concept of the invention which is desirable during a later search of analogous art. The numbers should be complimented with words spelled out to facilitate future searches. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 and 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 1, 4-5 and 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “…decentral energy system…”. The examiner recommends changing the term to ”decentralized energy system” to improve the clarity of the claim and to use language that is commonly used in the art. Appropriate 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1 contains the following abstract ideas:
Mathematical calculations of performing a simulation of power generation by one or more power sources of a decentral energy system during a simulation duration.
A Mental step of performing an optimization of a charging strategy.
Claims 2-15 (just furthering the abstract ideas of claim 1).
The following elements of claims 1-15 are more than the abstract ideas above:
Claim 1
obtaining a vehicle schedule defining presence time windows during the simulation duration (general data gathering steps are extra post-solution activity).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the applicant has not claimed any practical/tangible change to the system. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claims 1-15 do not enact any physical changes to the system.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BATIR et al. (US 2021/0339647 A1, hereinafter BATIR).
PNG
media_image1.png
556
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, BATIR discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
performing a simulation of power generation by one or more power sources of a decentral energy system during a simulation duration (See Fig.2, Step#S101-S102 and Pars.18, disclose calculating an amount of power expected to be available by the solar power source, the schedule and the power output of the solar ramp depends on weather conditions. This means that a consideration of the weather conditions is considered/simulated in the calculation to calculate the available power over a period of time),
obtaining a vehicle schedule defining presence time windows during the simulation du- ration, one or more electric vehicles being connected to one or more charging stations of the de- central energy system during the presence time windows (See Fig.2, Step#S104 and Pars.21-22, disclose receiving vehicle charging requirement and schedule data. Par.20 further discloses obtaining availability windows of the vehicle is available for charging), and
performing an optimization of a charging strategy of the one or more charging stations based on the power generation during the simulation duration and further based on the vehicle schedule (See Fig.2, Step# S105 and Par.22 disclose determining the time to charge or discharge the plurality of vehicles based on the power generation simulation and the obtained vehicle schedule).
Regarding claim 2, BATIR discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising:
when performing the simulation of the power generation:
performing an optimization of the power generation by the one or more power sources (See Par.23, discloses controlling the vehicle battery pack to become a power source and to discharge its power to the grid to help balance the grid. This is interpreted as optimization of power generation), the optimization of the power generation being coupled with the optimization of the charging strategy (See Fig.2, Step#S105, discloses optimizing the charging strategy to charge the battery packs of vehicles based on the power generation simulation including weather and vehicle schedules. Some of the vehicles are controlled to discharge into the grid in order for the grid to ensure there is enough grid power to perform its function and charge the vehicles that need to be charged at that time).
Regarding claim 3, BATIR discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2 as discussed above, wherein the optimization of the power generation and the optimization of the charging strategy are executed interleaved for rolling time increments within the simulation duration (See Par.29, discloses that the steps S101 and S104 may be repeated when new data/changes take place. The examiner interprets this to mean that after a solar ramp is calculated and the vehicle and used to optimize the charging in Step S105, new data may be available because of changes in power generation or changes to the schedule and the process returns back to the step S101 after stepS105 in order to further optimize the charging plan. Par.29 discloses the optimization update is done periodically).
Regarding claim 6, BATIR discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the optimization of the charging strategy sets charging time windows during the presence time windows (See Fig.2, Step#S105 and Par.22, disclose the charge timing may be determined in S105 based on one or more of the vehicle 130 charging requirement, the solar ramp data received in S102, schedule data… and any other vehicle-generated data previously discussed), the one or more electric vehicles being charged during the charging time windows and not being charged outside of the charging time windows (See Par.20 further discloses obtaining availability windows of the vehicle is available for charging. As disclosed in Par.22, the charge timing is done based on vehicle data such as received available charging windows).
Regarding claim 7, BATIR discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the one or more charging time windows are set in accordance with the optimization of the power generation (See Par.22, discloses the charge timing may be determined in S105 based on one or more of the solar ramp data received in S102, pricing data, a selected renewable energy mix, a local and/or average regional price of energy. All elements interpreted to be part of optimization of the power generation).
Regarding claim 8, BATIR discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle schedule further defines a target state of charge of the one or more electric vehicles at an end of the presence time windows (See Fig.2, Step#S104, discloses vehicle charging requirements are an input that is used in determining the vehicle charging schedule. Par.3 defines vehicle charging requirements to include quantity of charge needed to restore the power output capacity toa predetermined level).
Regarding claim 12, BATIR discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the vehicle schedule further defines an initial state of charge of the one or more electric vehicles at a beginning of the presence time windows (See Fig.2 and Pars.4 and 19, disclose the charging schedule in step S105 is determined based on charging requirements provided in step#S104. The charging requirements are defined as the current output capacity of the battery and amount of charge needed to reach a next destination. The amount of charge needed is interpreted to be = goal SOC-the current (initial) SOC).
Regarding claim 13, BATIR discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the vehicle schedule further defines whether the one or more electric vehicles can discharge electric energy into the decentral energy system through the one or more charging station (See Fig.2, Step# S105 and Pars.22-23 disclose determining the time to charge or discharge one or a plurality of vehicles based on the power generation simulation and the obtained vehicle schedule. The discharging is done in times such as T-3 to T-1 to supplement low solar power generation [Par.26])
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BATIR in view of FAIRLIE (US 2005/0165511 A1, hereinafter FAIRLIE).
Regarding claim 4, BATIR discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2 as discussed above, BATIR does further disclose wherein the optimization of the power generation minimizes an output value of a goal function (See Par.22, discloses the optimization is based on pricing data, this is interpreted to mean that the optimization is performed with the goal to minimize cost, can also be interpreted as maximizing savings).
However, BATIR does not disclose the goal function penalizing emission of pollutants by the one or more power sources of the decentral energy system.
FAIRLIE discloses an energy network comprising one or more power sources of a decentral energy system (See Fig.1, Items#58, 62, 66 and 70, disclose a plurality of power generation sources), wherein the optimization of the power generation minimizes an output value of a goal function (See Par.126, discloses adjusting the availability of the power station having a reduced amount of pollutants i.e. minimizing pollutants), the goal function penalizing emission of pollutants by the one or more power sources of the decentral energy system (See Par.126, discloses including an emission penalty).
BATIR and FAIRLIE are analogous art since they both deal with power networks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by BATIR with the teachings of FAIRLIE by adding a penalty for emission of pollutants to the goal function for the benefit of combating climate change by reducing greenhouse gases.
Regarding claim 5, BATIR discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2 as discussed above, BATIR does further disclose wherein the optimization of the power generation minimizes an output value of a goal function (See Par.22, discloses the optimization is based on pricing data, this is interpreted to mean that the optimization is performed with the goal to minimize cost, can also be interpreted as maximizing savings).
However, BATIR does not disclose the goal function penalizing electric power injected into the decentral energy system from a supplier grid.
FAIRLIE discloses an energy network comprising one or more power sources of a decentral energy system (See Fig.1, Items#58, 62, 66 and 70, disclose a plurality of power generation sources), wherein the optimization of the power generation minimizes an output value of a goal function (See Par.126, discloses adjusting the availability of the power station having a reduced amount of pollutants i.e. minimizing pollutants), the goal function penalizing electric power injected into the decentral energy system from a supplier grid. (See Par.126, discloses penalizing electric power being injected when the power supplier has higher emissions).
BATIR and FAIRLIE are analogous art since they both deal with power networks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by BATIR with the teachings of FAIRLIE by adding a penalty to the goal function for injecting electric power from the supplier grid when the power supplier generates pollutant emissions for the benefit of combating climate change by reducing greenhouse gases.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BATIR in view of KUMAR et al. (US 11,485,249 B2, hereinafter KUMAR).
Regarding claims 9-10, BATIR discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8 as discussed above, However, BATIR does not disclose wherein the vehicle schedule further defines a penalty associated with not reaching the target state of charge at the end of the presence time windows.
KUMAR discloses control of electric vehicle charging infrastructure comprising a penalty associated with not reaching the target state of charge at the end of the presence time windows (See Col.5, lines 4-14, disclose input data including required SOC upon departure and an unfulfillment penalty. Regarding claim 10 is it implicit that when a penalty is set, the program aims to minimize the penalty to ensure that a vehicle has sufficient charge to reach its destination).
BATIR and KUMAR are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by BATIR with the teachings of KUMAR by adding a penalty for not reaching the target state of charge at the end of the presence time or the benefit of ensuring the vehicle has sufficient capacity to reach its destination.
Regarding claim 15, BATIR discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the optimization of the charging strategy is based on a goal function (See BATIR, Fig.2, Item#S104, discloses the goal function is to fulfil charging requirements. Par.22 also discloses the charge timing may be determined in step#S105 based on one or more of the solar ramp data received in S102, pricing data, a selected renewable energy mix, a local and/or average regional price of energy).
However, BAIR does not disclose wherein the goal function comprises multiple objectives, wherein relative weighting factors of the multiple objectives are set based on a user input.
KUMAR discloses control of electric vehicle charging infrastructure comprising an optimization based on a goal function, wherein the goal function comprises multiple objectives, wherein relative weighting factors of the multiple objectives are set based on a user input (See Col.15, line 62 to Col.16, line 5, disclose optimization comprising two objectives, weighted sum of annualized costs and end user convenience and the weights may be adjusted by the user).
BATIR and KUMAR are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by BATIR with the teachings of KUMAR such that the goal function comprises multiple objectives, wherein relative weighting factors of the multiple objectives are set based on a user input for the benefit of allowing the user to change the charging goal based on their priority (cost VS convenience).
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BATIR in view of LOGHAVI et al. (US 2020/0254897 A1, hereinafter LOGHAVI).
Regarding claims 11 and 14, BATIR discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as discussed above, However, BATIR does not disclose wherein the optimization of the charging strategy maximizes or minimizes an output value of a goal function, the goal function penalizing larger charging rates or discharging rates of the one or more charging station.
LOGHAVI discloses a system and method for charging a fleet of electric vehicles, comprising an optimization algorithm with a goal function to minimize battery deterioration, the goal function penalizing larger charging rates (See Par.60, discloses the optimization algorithm may associate a penalty for a higher charging rate).
BATIR and LOGHAVI are analogous art since they both deal with battery charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed BATIR with the teachings of LOGHAVI by adding a penalty to larger charging rates for the benefit of protecting the vehicle battery against deterioration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM EST.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 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.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859