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 .
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. [17105485, filed 11-25-2020] and [15477669, filed 4-3-2017], and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Applicants’s claims 1-20 (esp. independent claims) include language which was not supported by either of the parent applications of the instant application. In 17105485’s USPN 11912153, it was claimed in Claim 1:
“A system for managing a group of charging stations for at least one electric vehicle, comprising:… a first interface within the central electric vehicle charger controller for enabling communication between the central electric vehicle charger controller and the plurality of charging units for charging the at least one electric vehicle; a second interface within the central electric vehicle charger controller for enabling communications between the central electric vehicle charger controller and a plurality of mobile charging applications enabling finding of locations of at least one of the plurality of charging units and making of reservations with the at least one of the plurality of charging units;”
Similar language is in Claim 17 of 17105485’s USPN 11912153 and Claims [1 and 11] of 15477669’s USPN 10857902.
However, nowhere does it describe what was added to claims 1, 10, and 19 of this instant application, namely:
PNG
media_image1.png
470
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, this language, which is attributed to being part of each charging unit, was not supported by the originally filed disclosure of the parent applications, and appears to require a change of priority to a continuation in part.
Furthermore, Claims 2, 11, and 19 contain limitations which were not supported in the parent documents noted above. Namely, “each of the plurality of charging units connects to the local power grid via a ganged outlet.”
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 11, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For Claims 2, 11, and 19, Applicant has claimed “each of the plurality of charging units connects to the local power grid via a ganged outlet.” However, this limitation was not supported in the parent applications/patents, which instead only has “Offered power may in fact also be provided by user devices whereby one personal mobility device may be used to transfer power to another personal mobility device whether singly or in a ganged or combined fashion”. While the examiner will examine the limitations, it is noted that they will be examined with a priority date of the filing of the instant application, rather than the priority date of the parent applications. If the applicant would like to have the earlier filing date, then the language needs to match what was originally filed in the parent applications, as noted above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation of
Claims 1-20 of each charging unit comprising: “at least one interface within the central device charger controller for enabling communications with the central device charger controller and a plurality of mobile charging applications and for controlling charging of a connected at least one electric vehicle.”
Claims 2, 11, 19, and 20 “each of the plurality of charging units connects to the local power grid via a ganged outlet.”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
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 because elements 400 and 401 of Fig. 4 lack clear text/symbols/[a legend] to demonstrate what they are meant to refer to in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not have support for the Continuation in Part limitations not present in the parent applications/patents as noted above. Add the new matter “each of the plurality of charging units connects to the local power grid via a ganged outlet” present in Claims 2, 11, 19, and 20, but not in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification contains a claimed term “GPSS” wireless communication which was not supported by the full meaning of the acronym. The meaning of the term is not clear from a simple browsing of the prior art. If the applicant can provide proof that it is supported and well known only as a single meaning, then provide the evidence. Or if the applicant meant the well-known GPS (which would not appear to be an appropriate context for communication for charging purposes), then consider making the change.
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 1-20 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.
Applicant claims in Claims 1, 10, and 19:
PNG
media_image1.png
470
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
286
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
88
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
88
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It appears the applicant may have meant to state something different. If there are a plurality of charging units (esp. an issue for Claims 1-9, 19, and 20), and only one central device charger controller, how can each of the plurality of charging units comprise (i.e. contain) a component within the [single] central device charger controller.
It is noted that Claims 1 and 17 of the parent patent document USPN 11912153 B2 does not having this component (called the second interface) inside each of the chargers, but rather inside the [single] central device charger controller. For purposes of examination, the examiner will assume the rejected language was within the central device charger controller for Claims 1-9, 19, and 20.
Claims 10-18 recites the limitation "the central device charger controller" in Claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For purposes of examination, in light of the considerations above, the examiner will assume claims 10-18 omitted the language reject above, i.e. “at least one interface within the central device charger controller for enabling communications with the central device charger controller and a plurality of mobile charging applications and for controlling charging of a connected at least one electric vehicle.” will not be considered part of independent Claim 10 upon which dependent claims 11-18 depend.
Claims 11 and 12 [claim 13 due to dependence upon claim 12] recites the limitation “the plurality of charging units” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. This limitation seems to be due to the applicant copying dependent claims from Claim 1’s dependent claims, as claim 1 does claim “a plurality of charging units”. For purposes of examination, the examiner will assume the applicant meant “the charging unit” instead of “the plurality of charging units” or “each of the plurality of charging units”.
Claims 12 and 16 [claims 13, 17, & 18 due to dependence upon claims 12 & 16] recites the limitation "the at least one interface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. See below for interpretation.
Claims 12 and 16-18 [claim 13 due to dependence upon claim 12] recites the limitation "the plurality of mobile charging applications" for Claims 12 & 16, “the plurality of mobile applications” for Claims 17 & 18, and “a mobile application” . In light of the examiner’s interpretation of Claim 10 upon which these claims depend, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, Claims 12 and 16-18 will be understood to omit the limitations.
Claim 12 will be examined to as if it states:
The charging unit of claim 10, wherein the charging unit [[plurality of charging units]] further comprises wireless communications circuitry for communicating [[with the plurality of mobile charging applications through the at least one interface]] via wireless communications.
Claim 16 will be examined to as if it states:
The charging unit of claim 10, wherein the charging circuitry controls provision of the charging current to the at least one electric vehicle responsive to control signals [[provided by the plurality of mobile charging applications through the at least one interface]].
Claim 17 will be examined to as if it states:
The charging unit of claim 16, wherein [[each of the plurality of mobile applications]] the charging unit initiates provision of the charging signal to the at least one electric vehicle responsive to a user input [[to a mobile application]].
Claim 18 will be examined to as if it states:
The charging unit of claim 16, wherein [[each of the plurality of mobile applications]] the charging unit tracks charging and provides for billing of a user for charging of the electric vehicle.
Claims 8, 9, and 20 recite the limitation "the plurality of mobile applications". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear the applicant meant to claim “the plurality of mobile charging applications”
Claims 5 and 14 recite the limitation "the plurality of chargers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of Examination,
the examiner will assume Claim 5 meant “the plurality of charging units”
the examiner will assume Claim 14 meant “the charging unit”
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected for having a term without a clear meaning. Applicant has claimed “the wireless communications comprises at least one of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cellular and GPSS.” GPSS was not defined by the specification, and the meaning of the term is not clearly defined in the prior art (there are multiple meanings). Unlike Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, USB, etc. its meaning is not clear. For purposes of examination, this Markush option will be omitted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20, 21, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 10857902. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the elements of the charging connector are present and charging unit structure.
Claims 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11912153. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the elements of the charging connector are present and charging unit structure.
Claims 11-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims [1-20, 21, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 10857902]
claims [1, 7, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11912153]
in view of McCool et al (USPGPN 20140021908) for limitations regarding the wireless communication and control of charging by the application (see 103 rejections below). Where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that wireless communication of controls by a mobile application is more convenient for a user rather than them having to walk to a charging station to perform every operation (thus for claims 12, 13, & 16-18)
in view of Bissonette et al (USPGPN 20120249064, hereinafter Bisson) for limitations regarding the level of the battery charger and the connection to the voltage level of the grid (see 102 and 103 rejections below by Bisson), where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that level 1/2 chargers & 102/220-240 VAC outlets are commonly used and standard, and thus are convenient for users to use, replace parts, & understand (thus for Claims 14 & 15)
in Amelio et al (USPGPN 20150244121) for limitations on the ganged outlet (see 103 rejections below using Amelio as a secondary reference), Amelio teaches in ¶[114] that the ganged outlet allows retrofitting, i.e. improves flexibility and convenience for users (official notice taken if applicant would like more evidence; thus for Claim 11).
Claims 1-10, 19, and 20 are similarly rejected for substantially the same reasons over claims [1-20 of USPN 11912153] and [1-28 of USPN 10857902]
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.
(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.
Claims 10, 12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bissonette et al (USPGPN 20120249064, hereinafter Bisson;
see 112[b] interpretation for omitted language of Claims 10, 12, 16, and 17).
Independent Claim 10, Bisson discloses a charging unit for charging an electric vehicle (100), (Figs. [1-7, esp. 1-3]) comprising:
charging circuitry (210) for generating a charging current to the at least one electric vehicle responsive to power provided from a local power grid (see grid options of Figs. 1-7);
a connector providing the generated charging current from the charging circuitry to the at least one electric vehicle (212).
Dependent Claim 12, Bisson discloses the charging unit further comprises wireless communications circuitry for communicating via wireless communications (¶[28] states that the process of Figs. 12A & 12B is performed by energy management system 210 of Figs. 1-3, ¶[87] states that 210 communicates wirelessly).
Dependent Claim 14, Bisson discloses the charging unit comprises Level 1 or Level 2 battery chargers (¶’s [38, 42], where cable 13 is the connector for charging unit/circuitry 125)
Dependent Claim 15, Bisson discloses the connector connects to the local power grid via at least one of a 120 V AC outlet or a range of outlets form 220 V to 240 V AC (¶[42], where cable 13 is the connector for charging unit/circuitry 125).
Dependent Claim 16, Bisson discloses the charging circuitry controls provision of the charging current to the at least one electric vehicle responsive to control signals (master controller, 310, user interface 350, are involved in the control signals).
Dependent Claim 17, Bisson discloses the charging unit initiates provision of the charging signal to the at least one electric vehicle responsive to a user input (¶[65, 83-85] with Figs. 12A-12B demonstrating that the user input can control the initiation and provision of charging signals to the electric vehicle)
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissonette et al (USPGPN 20120249064, hereinafter Bisson) in view of Amelio et al (USPGPN 20150244121)
Dependent Claim 11, Bisson is silent to [[each of the plurality of charging units]] the charging unit connects to the local power grid via a ganged outlet (though arguable that 210 would qualify with the plurality of inputs it has)
Amelio teaches the charging unit connects to the local power grid via a ganged outlet (¶[114], see at least Figs. 7, 8, 11, 12, 13B & 14). Analogous to both Bisson and the present application, Amelio supports conversion of local-grid/micro-grid elements to electricity (¶[210-218, esp. 213]), in addition to mains connection (see at least ¶’s [131, 154]). Amelio teaches in ¶[114] that the ganged outlet allows retrofitting, i.e. improves flexibility and convenience for users (official notice taken if applicant would like more evidence).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bisson with Amelio to provide improved convenience and flexibility.
Claim 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissonette et al (USPGPN 20120249064, hereinafter Bisson) in view of Alexander et al (USPGPN 20120268245; hereinafter Alex;
see 112[b] interpretation for omitted language of Claims 13 and 18)
Dependent Claim 13, Bisson is silent to the wireless communications comprises at least one of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cellular and [[GPSS]] (smart/cell phone described in ¶[63], which may imply cellular, Bluetooth, and/or Wi-Fi, but not explicitly stated).
Alex teaches the wireless communications comprises at least one of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and cellular (¶[48], Figs. [2, 3, 5, 6, 9] demonstrates the communication between the charging station/unit and 202 and server elements [204, 208, 302, 304, 914]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that WiFi/WiMAX/WLAN, Bluetooth, and cellular communications are commonly used, well known, and standard communications which would provide convenience and reliability to communication in addition to allowing for communications not to be limited by wiring [and thus improved flexibility and reduced costs].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bisson with Alex to provide improved convenience, costs, flexibility, and reliability.
Dependent Claim 18, Bisson is silent to the charging unit tracks charging and provides for billing of a user for charging of the electric vehicle.
Alex teaches the charging unit tracks charging and provides for billing of a user for charging of the electric vehicle (¶’s [30, 34, 43], occurs through communication with network and 204). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by billing for electrical energy commensurate with the used amount, it serves to ensure that the user is able to conveniently and reliably receive power outside their home and that both the provider of the charging equipment and the generator of power to operate continuously and not become bankrupt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bisson with Alex to provide improved convenience and reliability.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCool et al (USPGPN 20140021908) in view of Bissonette et al (USPGPN 20120249064, hereinafter Bisson; see 112[b] interpretations)
Independent Claim 1, McCool teaches a system (Figs. 1-3 & 14) for controlling a group of charging stations (¶’s [07, 11, 46, 55, 67, 68, 73, 77, 80] & Fig. 20) for at least one electric vehicle (12), comprising:
a central device charger controller (40, see ¶’s [54, 55, 76, 78] see at least Fig. 1 for remote location from the vehicle) for controlling system operation;
a plurality of charging units communicating with the central device charger controller (10, see abstract, ¶’s [05-07, 52-54, 71, 73, 75),
wherein the plurality of charging units each further comprises:
charging circuitry for generating a charging current to the at least one electric vehicle responsive to power provided from a local power grid (20, see ¶[48) responsive to power provided from a local power grid (28, ¶’s [50, 56], utility line is claimed local power grid);
at least one interface within the central device charger controller for enabling communications with the central device charger controller and a plurality of mobile charging applications and for controlling charging of a connected at least one electric vehicle (see 112[b] interpretation, vehicle communication with server shown between 34 and 36 in Fig. 2;
mobile application and server shown between 38 and 36 in Fig. 2, see abstract, ¶’s [05, 06, 54, 71, 73, 75, 79, 81], see control in Fig. 31).
McCool is silent to each charging unit further comprises a connector providing the generated charging current from the charging circuitry to the at least one electric vehicle.
Bisson teaches each charging unit (210, Figs. [1-7, esp. 1-3]) further comprises a connector (212) providing the generated charging current from the charging circuitry to the at least one electric vehicle (100).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that an electrical connection, versus a wireless connection as in McCool, serves to improve the efficiency of the energy transfer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McCool with Bisson to provide improved efficiency.
Dependent Claims 3 and 4, McCool teaches each of the plurality of charging units further comprises wireless communications circuitry for communicating with the plurality of mobile charging applications through the at least one interface via wireless communications (with respect to [wrt] claim 3; abstract & ¶’s [52, 54], see Fig. 2 for the communication with user device 34 via server 36, with ¶’s [60-74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82] providing more detail on the application) the wireless communications comprise at least one of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cellular and [[GPSS]] (wrt Claim 4, ¶[52] describes 1st two, ¶[67] describing 3rd).
Dependent Claim 5, the combination of McCool and Bisson teaches the plurality of chargers comprises Level 1 or Level 2 battery chargers (Bisson ¶’s [38, 42], where cable 13 is the connector for charging unit/circuitry 125).
Dependent Claim 6, the combination of McCool and Bisson teaches the connector connects to the local power grid via at least one of a 120 V AC outlet or a range of outlets form 220 V to 240 V AC (Bisson: ¶[42], cable 13 is the connector for charging unit/circuitry 125)
Dependent Claim 7, McCool teaches the charging circuitry controls provision of the charging current to the at least one electric vehicle responsive to control signals provided by the plurality of mobile charging applications through the at least one interface (Fig. 31, ¶[77]).
Dependent Claim 8, McCool teaches each of the plurality of mobile applications initiate provision of the charging signal to the at least one electric vehicle responsive to a user input to a mobile application (Fig. 31, ¶[77], “user selects ‘power up’”).
Dependent Claim 9, McCool teaches each of the plurality of mobile applications tracks charging and provides for billing of a user for charging of the electric vehicle (Fig. 31, ¶[74]).
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCool et al (USPGPN 20140021908) in view of and Amelio et al (USPGPN 20150244121)
Independent Claim 1, McCool teaches a system (Figs. 1-3 & 14) for controlling a group of charging stations (¶’s [07, 11, 46, 55, 67, 68, 73, 77, 80] & Fig. 20) for at least one electric vehicle (12), comprising:
a central device charger controller (40, see ¶’s [54, 55, 76, 78] see at least Fig. 1 for remote location from the vehicle) for controlling system operation;
a plurality of charging units communicating with the central device charger controller (10, see abstract, ¶’s [05-07, 52-54, 71, 73, 75),
wherein the plurality of charging units each further comprises:
charging circuitry for generating a charging current to the at least one electric vehicle responsive to power provided from a local power grid (20, see ¶[48) responsive to power provided from a local power grid (28, ¶’s [50, 56], utility line is claimed local power grid);
at least one interface within the central device charger controller for enabling communications with the central device charger controller and a plurality of mobile charging applications and for controlling charging of a connected at least one electric vehicle (see 112[b] interpretation, vehicle communication with server shown between 34 and 36 in Fig. 2;
mobile application and server shown between 38 and 36 in Fig. 2, see abstract, ¶’s [05, 06, 54, 71, 73, 75, 79, 81], see control in Fig. 31).
McCool is silent to each charging unit further comprises a connector providing the generated charging current from the charging circuitry to the at least one electric vehicle.
Amelio teaches each charging unit ([104, 204, 304, 404] in Figs. [1-7]) further comprises a connector (shown between charging unit and vehicle 102) providing the generated charging current from the charging circuitry to the at least one electric vehicle (102).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that an electrical connection, versus a wireless connection as in McCool, serves to improve the efficiency of the energy transfer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McCool with Amelio to provide improved efficiency.
Dependent Claim 2, McCool is silent to each of the plurality of charging units connects to the local power grid via a ganged outlet.
Amelio teaches the charging unit connects to the local power grid via a ganged outlet (¶[114], see at least Figs. 7, 8, 11, 12, 13B & 14). Analogous to McCool (¶[04]), and the present application, Amelio supports conversion of local-grid/micro-grid elements to electricity (¶[210-218, esp. 213]), in addition to mains connection (see at least ¶’s [131, 154]). Amelio teaches in ¶[114] that the ganged outlet allows retrofitting, i.e. improves flexibility and convenience for users (official notice taken if applicant would like more evidence to support this rationale).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McCool with Amelio to provide improved convenience and flexibility.
Dependent Claims 3 and 4, McCool teaches each of the plurality of charging units further comprises wireless communications circuitry for communicating with the plurality of mobile charging applications through the at least one interface via wireless communications (with respect to [wrt] claim 3; abstract & ¶’s [52, 54], see Fig. 2 for the communication with user device 34 via server 36, with ¶’s [60-74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82] providing more detail on the application) the wireless communications comprise at least one of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cellular and [[GPSS]] (wrt Claim 4, ¶[52] describes 1st two, ¶[67] describing 3rd).
Dependent Claim 7, McCool teaches the charging circuitry controls provision of the charging current to the at least one electric vehicle responsive to control signals provided by the plurality of mobile charging applications through the at least one interface (Fig. 31, ¶[77]).
Dependent Claim 8, McCool teaches each of the plurality of mobile applications initiate provision of the charging signal to the at least one electric vehicle responsive to a user input to a mobile application (Fig. 31, ¶[77], “user selects ‘power up’”).
Independent Claim 19, McCool teaches a system (Figs. 1-3 & 14) for managing a group of charging stations (¶’s [07, 11, 46, 55, 67, 68, 73, 77, 80] & Fig. 20) for at least one electric vehicle (12), comprising:
a central device charger controller (40, see ¶’s [54, 55, 76, 78] see at least Fig. 1 for remote location from the vehicle) for controlling system operation;
a plurality of charging units communicating with the central device charger controller (10, see abstract, ¶’s [05-07, 52-54, 71, 73, 75), wherein the plurality of charging units each further comprises:
charging circuitry for generating a charging current to the at least one electric vehicle (20, see ¶[48) responsive to power provided from a local power grid (28, ¶’s [50, 56], utility line is claimed local power grid);
at least one interface within the central device charger controller for enabling communications with the central device charger controller and a plurality of mobile charging applications and for controlling charging of a connected at least one electric vehicle (see 112[b] interpretation, vehicle communication with server shown between 34 and 36 in Fig. 2;
mobile application and server shown between 38 and 36 in Fig. 2, see abstract, ¶’s [05, 06, 54, 71, 73, 75, 79, 81], see control in Fig. 31);
wireless communications circuitry for communicating with at least one of the plurality of mobile charging application through the at least one interface via wireless communications (abstract & ¶’s [52, 54], see Fig. 2 for the communication with user device 34 via server 36, with ¶’s [60-74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82] providing more detail on the application); and
wherein the charging circuitry controls provision of the charging current to the at least one electric vehicle responsive to control signals provided by the plurality of mobile charging applications through the at least one interface (Fig. 31, ¶[77]).
McCool is silent to each of the plurality of charging units connects to the local power grid via a ganged outlet; and a connector providing the generated charging current from the charging circuitry to the at least one electric vehicle.
Amelio teaches each charging unit ([104, 204, 304, 404] in Figs. [1-7]) further comprises a connector (shown between charging unit and vehicle 102) providing the generated charging current from the charging circuitry to the at least one electric vehicle (102).
Amelio teaches the charging unit connects to the local power grid via a ganged outlet (¶[114], see at least Figs. 7, 8, 11, 12, 13B & 14). Analogous to McCool (¶[04]), and the present application, Amelio supports conversion of local-grid/micro-grid elements to electricity (¶[210-218, esp. 213]), in addition to mains connection (see at least ¶’s [131, 154]). Amelio teaches in ¶[114] that the ganged outlet allows retrofitting, i.e. improves flexibility and convenience for users (official notice taken if applicant would like more evidence to support this rationale).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that an electrical connection, versus a wireless connection as in McCool, serves to improve the efficiency of the energy transfer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McCool with Amelio to provide improved convenience, efficiency, and flexibility.
Dependent Claims 9 and 20, McCool teaches each of the plurality of mobile applications tracks charging & provides for billing of a user for charging of the electric vehicle (Fig.31,¶[74]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859