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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-2, 8-11 and 16-18 in the reply filed on 15 October 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the election filed on 15 October 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 3-7, 12-15 and 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-2, 8-11 and 16-18 have been elected and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 March 2025 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 3 does not include labels or descriptions of the x and y axis. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 468 (shown in Figure 5) and 518 (shown in Figure 6) Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Further, the drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the all of the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels to improve readability and understanding of the discloses. See MPEP 608.02(b) paragraph 6.22.
Claim Objections
Claim 8, 9, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “UBE Measured at Certification”. However, the acronym “UBE” was not previously introduced in the claim. The examiner recommends providing the term followed by the acronym in parenthesis at the first introduction of an acronym. Claims 9, 16, and 17 also recite UBE and are objected to for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-11, and 16-18 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in lines 9-11 recites “in response to the one or more enabling conditions, selectively integrating power output at least one of by the battery of the EV to the offboard loads and at the one or more V2X loads to generate an integrated power output value”. This phrase is wholly unclear. It is not clear to the examiner whether the claim requires (1) selecting one of (a) at least one of the battery of the EV to the offboard loads or (b) one or more V2X loads to selectively integrate power output, or if the claim requires (2) selectively integrating power output by the battery of the EV to the offboard loads and the at least one or more V2X loads. The examiner believes Applicant intended to claim to be interpreted as the former such that only one of the power output of the battery of the EV or the V2X loads meets the claims and will examine accordingly. Accordingly, The examiner believes that the recitation should be replaced with “in response to the one or more enabling conditions, selectively integrating power output by at least one of the battery of the EV to the offboard loads and at least one or more of the V2X loads to generate an integrated power output value” or similar.
Claim 11 at lines 11-14 recites “in response to the one or more enabling conditions, the controller is configured to selectively integrate at least one of power output by the battery of the EV and at the one or more V2X loads to the one or more V2X loads to generate an integrated power output value”. It is not clear to the examiner what is intended by reciting “selectively integrate….at the one or more V2X loads”. The examiner believes Applicant intended to recite “in response to the one or more enabling conditions, the controller is configured to selectively integrate at least one of power output by the battery of the EV and at least one or more V2X loads to generate an integrated power output value”.
Claims 2 and 8-10 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 16-18 depend from claim 11 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 11.
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 1-2, 8-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 1:
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
Claim 1 is directed toward a method for estimating a virtual distance and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 11 is directed toward a virtual odometer (a device or system) for estimating a virtual distance and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 11 recites:
A virtual odometer for estimating a virtual distance corresponding to power supplied by an electric vehicle (EV) to offboard loads, comprising:
one or more sensors monitoring output of a battery of the EV; and
a controller configured to communicate with the one or more sensors and to monitor one or more enabling conditions comprising at least one of:
a speed of the EV;
an active/inactive mode for supplying power to one or more V2X loads;
a net charging/discharging state of a battery of the electric vehicle;
a plug-in charging state of the electric vehicle; and
a wirelessly charging state of the electric vehicle,
in response to the one or more enabling conditions, the controller is configured to selectively integrate at least one of power output by the battery of the EV and at the one or more V2X loads to the one or more V2X loads to generate an integrated power output value, and
the controller is configured to convert the integrated power output value to a virtual distance.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind involving mathematical concepts. Specifically, “monitor one or more enabling conditions comprising at least one of: a speed of the EV; an active/inactive mode for supplying power to one or more V2X loads; a net charging/discharging state of a battery of the electric vehicle; a plug-in charging state of the electric vehicle; and a wirelessly charging state of the electric vehicle,” “in response to the one or more enabling conditions … selectively integrate at least one of power output by the battery of the EV and at the one or more V2X loads to the one or more V2X loads to generate an integrated power output value” and “convert the integrated power output value to a virtual distance” steps encompass a human monitoring parameters including that the vehicle is being charged and using a pen and paper to perform mathematical calculations including integrating the output of the battery to determine a power output value and converting that to a virtual distance.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 11 recites:
A virtual odometer for estimating a virtual distance corresponding to power supplied by an electric vehicle (EV) to offboard loads, comprising:
one or more sensors monitoring output of a battery of the EV; and
a controller configured to communicate with the one or more sensors and to monitor one or more enabling conditions comprising at least one of:
a speed of the EV;
an active/inactive mode for supplying power to one or more V2X loads;
a net charging/discharging state of a battery of the electric vehicle;
a plug-in charging state of the electric vehicle; and
a wirelessly charging state of the electric vehicle,
in response to the one or more enabling conditions, the controller is configured to selectively integrate at least one of power output by the battery of the EV and at the one or more V2X loads to the one or more V2X loads to generate an integrated power output value, and
the controller is configured to convert the integrated power output value to a virtual distance.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitations of “one or more sensors monitoring output of a battery of the EV”; and “a controller configured to communicate with the one or more sensors” the examiner submits that these limitations merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Specifically, the courts have held that merely reciting the works “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, “one or more sensors monitoring output of a battery of the EV”; and “a controller configured to communicate with the one or more sensors” are recited at a high level of generality that merely automates the monitoring, integrating, and converting steps therefore acting as a generic computer or generic components such as processors, memory, and sensors that are simply employed as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see [0043] and [0075-0079] of instant application). The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer and generic components (see [0043] and [0075-0079] of instant application).
Additionally, the limitations of “one or more sensors monitoring output of a battery of the EV;” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering or data output) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See at least MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more sensors monitoring output of a battery of the EV”; and “a controller configured to communicate with the one or more sensors” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic components (see [0043] and [0075-0079] of the instant application). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, as discussed above, the additional limitations of “one or more sensors monitoring output of a battery of the EV;” the examiner submits can also be considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 1 have similar recitations to claim 11 and the analysis above with respect to claim 11 also applies to claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2, 8-10 and 16-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process (integrating recited claim 2, 8, 9, 16, 17; insignificant extra-solution activity and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements (an interface or display to receive data input/output by a customer or manufacture of claims 10 and 18). These limitations are considered mental process steps and well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements (an interface such as a display or infotainment, see instant application [0044] and [0071]) and additional steps that amount to necessary data generation or output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2, 8-10, and 16-18 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-2, 8-11, and 16-18 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saita et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/011694, hereinafter “Saita”).
Saita discloses method for estimating a virtual distance corresponding to power supplied by an electric vehicle (EV) to offboard loads, comprising:
monitoring one or more enabling conditions comprising at least one of:
a speed of the EV;
an active/inactive mode for supplying power to one or more V2X loads;
a net charging/discharging state of a battery of the electric vehicle (see at least Saita Figure 1, 3, 4, and 10, and accompanying description. For example see at least [0039] “The parameter indicating usage may include at least one of a virtual distance of the vehicle 10 including a converted distance obtained by converting the amount of electric power discharged by the vehicle 10 into the travelling distance of the vehicle 10, the total discharge amount of electric power of the battery, the operating time of the vehicle 10 or the number of startups of the vehicle 10.” See also [0047] In FIG. 4, the line 400 indicates the total amount of electric power output from the battery 12. The line 410 indicates the amount of electric power output from the battery 12 due to the travelling of the vehicle 10 (due to travelling). The difference between the line 400 and the line 410 indicates the amount of electric power output from the battery 12 due to the operations other than the travelling of the vehicle 10. In the present embodiment, the difference between the line 400 and the line 410 indicates the amount of electric power released from the battery 12 to the power grid 90 outside the vehicle 10 (due to release to the outside).”);
a plug-in charging state of the electric vehicle; and
a wirelessly charging state of the electric vehicle;
in response to the one or more enabling conditions, selectively integrating power output at least one of by the battery of the EV to the offboard loads and at the one or more V2X loads to generate an integrated power output value (see at least Saita, Figure 1, 3, 4, and 10. For example see [0063-0066] , [0063] “FIG. 10 is a figure for describing the remaining usable distance of the vehicle 10 when the virtual distance is used. The virtual distance indicates, with a unit of distance, the total converted distance obtained by converting the travelling distance of the vehicle 10 and the amount of electric power released for operations other than travelling of the vehicle 10 into distance. In FIG. 10, the vertical axis is the distance indicating the virtual distance, and the horizontal axis is the using time of the vehicle 10” See also [0039]”);; and
converting the integrated power output value to a virtual distance (see at least Saita Figure 1, 3, 4, and 10. For example see [0063-0066] , [0063] “FIG. 10 is a figure for describing the remaining usable distance of the vehicle 10 when the virtual distance is used. The virtual distance indicates, with a unit of distance, the total converted distance obtained by converting the travelling distance of the vehicle 10 and the amount of electric power released for operations other than travelling of the vehicle 10 into distance. In FIG. 10, the vertical axis is the distance indicating the virtual distance, and the horizontal axis is the using time of the vehicle 10” See also [0039] “The parameter indicating usage may include at least one of a virtual distance of the vehicle 10 including a converted distance obtained by converting the amount of electric power discharged by the vehicle 10 into the travelling distance of the vehicle 10, the total discharge amount of electric power of the battery, the operating time of the vehicle 10 or the number of startups of the vehicle 10.).
Regarding claim 2, Saita discloses method of claim 1, wherein selectively integrating power output by the battery of the EV is performed when the speed is equal to zero, the net charging/discharging state is net discharging, and the active/inactive mode is active (see at least Saita Figure 1, wherein the vehicle is stopped at a charging facility, and thus the speed is zero, and the vehicle is actively charging/discharging. See at least [0027-0031] [0031] “When conducting the transmission and reception of the electric power between the power grid 90 and the battery 12, the charging and discharging facility 30 and the control apparatus 20 of the vehicle 10 conduct charging and discharging of the battery 12 according to the control of the control apparatus 100.” See also [0027] “The charging and discharging facility 30, a power consumer 70 and the power generating apparatus 80 are connected to a power grid 90. The power generating apparatus 80, for example, includes a power plant managed by an electric utility. The electric power generated by the power generating apparatus 80 is suppliable to the charging and discharging facility 30 and the power consumer 70 through the power grid 90. The power grid 90 is, for example, an electric power system…The charging and discharging facility 30a is provided in a dwelling unit 42a, and conducts charging and discharging of the battery 12a of the vehicle 10a connected to the charging and discharging facility 30a. When conducting discharging of the battery 12a, the electric power provided from the battery 12a may be consumed with an electric power load inside the dwelling unit 42a, or may be provided to the power grid 90 through a power line disposed in the dwelling unit 42a.”)
Regarding claim 10, Saita discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising providing an interface to enable at least one of a customer and a manufacturer to at least one of:
change an active/inactive mode for the one or more V2X loads
restrict output to the one or more V2X loads (see at least Saita Figure 6 and Figure 13 and [0040-0042] [0042] “The remaining usable amount calculation unit 220 calculates the remaining usable amount, based on the difference value obtained by subtracting the value of the parameter due to travelling and the amount of electric power output from the battery to the outside of the vehicle 10 until current from the guaranteed value. The control unit 240 controls, based on the remaining usable amount, whether or not to prohibit the power transmission and reception between the outside of the vehicle 10 and the battery, and controls, based on the reference difference value calculated by the reference difference value calculation unit 230, whether or not to restrict the power transmission and reception between the outside of the vehicle 10 and the battery.)
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saita in view of Tsuchiya (US Pub. No. 2021/0170903, hereinafter “Tsuchiya”).
Regarding claim 11, Saita teaches a virtual odometer for estimating a virtual distance corresponding to power supplied by an electric vehicle (EV) to offboard loads, comprising:
[[one or more sensors monitoring output of a battery of the EV; ]] and
a controller configured to communicate with the one or more sensors and to monitor one or more enabling conditions (see at least Saita Figure 3, control apparatus 100, and [0026] “The control apparatus 100 is connected to the aggregator server 180 through a communication network 190. The control apparatus 100 can communicate with a charging and discharging facility 30 through the communication network 190. The control apparatus 100 controls the charging and discharging facility 30 through the communication network 190. The control apparatus 100 communicates with the control apparatus 20 of the vehicle 10 through the communication network 190, and acquires various information of the vehicle 10 including travelling history as well as the SOC and SOH of the battery 12 of the vehicle 10.”) comprising at least one of :
a speed of the EV;
an active/inactive mode for supplying power to one or more V2X loads;
a net charging/discharging state of a battery of the electric vehicle
(see at least Saita, Figure 1, 3, 4, and 10, and accompanying description. For example see at least [0039] “The parameter indicating usage may include at least one of a virtual distance of the vehicle 10 including a converted distance obtained by converting the amount of electric power discharged by the vehicle 10 into the travelling distance of the vehicle 10, the total discharge amount of electric power of the battery, the operating time of the vehicle 10 or the number of startups of the vehicle 10.” See also [0047] In FIG. 4, the line 400 indicates the total amount of electric power output from the battery 12. The line 410 indicates the amount of electric power output from the battery 12 due to the travelling of the vehicle 10 (due to travelling). The difference between the line 400 and the line 410 indicates the amount of electric power output from the battery 12 due to the operations other than the travelling of the vehicle 10. In the present embodiment, the difference between the line 400 and the line 410 indicates the amount of electric power released from the battery 12 to the power grid 90 outside the vehicle 10 (due to release to the outside).”);
a plug-in charging state of the electric vehicle; and
a wirelessly charging state of the electric vehicle,
in response to the one or more enabling conditions, the controller is configured to selectively integrate at least one of power output by the battery of the EV and at the one or more V2X loads to the one or more V2X loads to generate an integrated power output value see at least Saita Figure 1, 3, 4, and 10. For example see [0063-0066] , [0063] “FIG. 10 is a figure for describing the remaining usable distance of the vehicle 10 when the virtual distance is used. The virtual distance indicates, with a unit of distance, the total converted distance obtained by converting the travelling distance of the vehicle 10 and the amount of electric power released for operations other than travelling of the vehicle 10 into distance. In FIG. 10, the vertical axis is the distance indicating the virtual distance, and the horizontal axis is the using time of the vehicle 10” See also [0039]”), and
the controller is configured to convert the integrated power output value to a virtual distance see at least Saita Figure 1, 3, 4, and 10. For example see [0063-0066] , [0063] “FIG. 10 is a figure for describing the remaining usable distance of the vehicle 10 when the virtual distance is used. The virtual distance indicates, with a unit of distance, the total converted distance obtained by converting the travelling distance of the vehicle 10 and the amount of electric power released for operations other than travelling of the vehicle 10 into distance. In FIG. 10, the vertical axis is the distance indicating the virtual distance, and the horizontal axis is the using time of the vehicle 10” See also [0039] “The parameter indicating usage may include at least one of a virtual distance of the vehicle 10 including a converted distance obtained by converting the amount of electric power discharged by the vehicle 10 into the travelling distance of the vehicle 10, the total discharge amount of electric power of the battery, the operating time of the vehicle 10 or the number of startups of the vehicle 10.).
Saita does not explicitly disclose one or more sensors monitoring output of a battery of the EV.
Tsuchiya teaches one or more sensors monitoring output of a battery of the EV (see at least Tsuchiya [0056], [0059], [0088], and [0134] For example see at least [0059] Vehicle 50 further includes a monitoring module 121 that monitors a state of charger-discharger 120. Monitoring module 121 includes various sensors that detect a state (for example, a voltage, a current, and a temperature) of charger-discharger 120 and outputs a result of detection to ECU 150. In this embodiment, monitoring module 121 detects a voltage and a current input to and output from the power conversion circuit.” See also [0088] “An electric utility measures contribution with any method. The electric utility may find a contribution based on a measurement value from smart meter 11. VGI system 1 may include, in addition to smart meter 11, a wattmeter (for example, a not-shown smart meter) that measures a contribution. The electric utility may find a contribution based on a measurement value from a wattmeter (not shown) contained in EVSE 40. The electric utility may find a contribution based on a measurement value from a sensor (for example, monitoring module 121 or 131) mounted on vehicle 50.” .[0134] Referring to FIG. 12 together with FIGS. 1 to 5, in S31, charging and discharging controller 502 (FIG. 4) of ECU 150 determines whether or not battery 130 is in a chargeable and dischargeable state based on outputs from various sensors.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saita with the teaching of Tsuchiya, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Tsuchiya teaches this allows the system and the vehicle to determine the amount of charging power provided by the vehicle (see at least Tsuchiya [0088]) which can determine the payment for the power provided to the grid (see at least Tsuchiya [0129] ).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Saita and Tsuchiya teach a virtual odometer of claim 11, further comprising an interface to enable at least one of a customer and a manufacturer to at least one of:
change an active/inactive mode for the one or more V2X loads; and
restrict output to the one or more V2X loads (see at least Saita Figure 6 and Figure 13 and [0040-0042] [0042] “The remaining usable amount calculation unit 220 calculates the remaining usable amount, based on the difference value obtained by subtracting the value of the parameter due to travelling and the amount of electric power output from the battery to the outside of the vehicle 10 until current from the guaranteed value. The control unit 240 controls, based on the remaining usable amount, whether or not to prohibit the power transmission and reception between the outside of the vehicle 10 and the battery, and controls, based on the reference difference value calculated by the reference difference value calculation unit 230, whether or not to restrict the power transmission and reception between the outside of the vehicle 10 and the battery.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Proposal for a new UN GTR on In-vehicle Battery Durability for Electrified Vehicles” is cited as a clean copy of the reference provided in the IDS and is more legible copy. The examiner notes that the proposal provides parameters that affect the durability of a battery similar to that as recited in claim 1, (see at least battery degradation in electrified vehicles, pages 4-5) and converts the V2X discharge to a virtual distance (see at least page 11, item 48).
US-20230318338-A1 to Saita is cited for disclosing covering external power provided to a grid to a virtual distance and in response controlling the amount of power discharged (see at least abstract, Figure 6, [0036] [0055] and [0080]).
US-6649289-B2 to Hsu is cited for showing sensors for determining the output of power of a vehicle to the grid.
US-20180188332-A1 to Newman is cited for teaching the ability of a vehicle to charge other vehicles, V2V [0044], determining the state of health of a battery and providing it as an equivalent of an odometer reading [0066], and suggesting or controlling charging based on a suggested charging recommendation to improve the state of health of the battery [0096].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662