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 .
Status of the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 02/06/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1-20 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no new claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
3. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 10-14, filed on 02/06/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
4. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the limitation “causing the entity to provide a first portion of the available amount of energy to a different location in the area that is not currently receiving electrical energy from the entity.” as amended in claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Buttgenbach did disclose this limitation as mapped in the final office action below.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 mentions “…amount of energy to the entity from; and”. The word “from” should be deleted to make the claim sound complete.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 mentions “a third portion of the available amount of energy to the energy storage unit, wherein the third portion is taken from the second portion.” but the specification does not disclose this. For examining purposes, this will be interpreted as a portion taken from the portion of energy given to the entity by the EV.
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) 1 – 2, 4 - 5, 8 - 9, 11 - 12, 15 – 16, 18 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190143829A1 (hereinafter, “Ramanujam”), and further in view of US20100082464A1 (hereinafter, “Keefe”), and further in view of US20200408549A1 (hereinafter, “Oshima”), and further in view of US11431169B1 (hereinafter, “Buttgenbach”).
13. Regarding claims 1, 8, & 15, Ramanujam teaches a method, performed by a server, the method comprising [0028] – [0029]: Ramanujam teaches this method can be implemented into a server.
determining that an entity cannot provide electrical energy… [0026] Ramanujam mentions that if the V2G supply is above or equal to a base load, then existing vehicles parked can supply power to the neighborhood. This further enables the system to determine whether a particular neighborhood has the ability to sustain a blackout or not.
Ramanujam does not explicitly teach…above a threshold amount to an area;
However, Keefe in the same field of endeavor, teaches …above a threshold amount to an area ([0045] – [0046] Fig. 4); Keefe teaches on a power grid (100) being able to determine if a certain power threshold has been reached or not (420). The power threshold being the threshold that has to be reached in order for the power grid (100) to provide enough electrical energy to everything it is providing power to. If that power threshold hasn’t been reached then the power grid (100) will resort to EVs (50) that are connected to the power grid (100) to help the power grid (100) reach the power threshold.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ramanujam with the teachings of Keefe, to have the grid able to determine ahead of time that it isn’t capable of providing enough power to prevent any instability or blackout issues.
14. Ramanujam further teaches a method, performed by a server, the method comprising:
determining an available amount of energy from an electric vehicle (EV),…wherein the available amount of energy is greater than or equal to the threshold amount; and [0025] - [0026] Ramanujam first has to determine an available number of electric vehicles (EV) that are eligible to be apart of the V2G pool. These EVs can be located at different locations or houses in the neighborhood. These locations can also provide power to the EV due to the nature of how an EV needs to be charged when plugged in. In order for an EV to be charged, power has to be provided to the port the EV is plugged into. Ramanujam also determines an available amount of energy by determining if the V2G supply is equal to or greater than that of a base load which we can consider a threshold.
Ramanujam does not explicitly teach …as well as an energy storage unit, at a location currently receiving electrical energy in the area,…
However, Oshima teaches …as well as an energy storage unit, at a location currently receiving electrical energy in the area,… ([0023] Fig. 1) Oshima teaches a group of electrical energy storage devices in Figure 1 that are referenced (1a, 1b, 1z). These electrical energy storage devices can be charged with power via an AC power source which many modern electric vehicles (EVs) have and can also supply power to loads they are connected to. Therefore, these energy storage units will be located in the area currently receiving electrical energy.
Ramanujam and Oshima are analogous art because Ramanujam teaches on determining when a grid is unable to provide sufficient energy and determine an available amount of energy using V2G technology to gather an amount of energy to supply to the grid in order while Oshima teaches on electrical energy storage devices that can be charged and can supply power to a load.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Oshima to modify the teachings of the combination of Ramanujam to include the teachings of Oshima because having different types of storage of electrical energy can be beneficial in a situation where perhaps a vehicle can’t connect to an entity or having different storages can also help benefit by just having more electrical energy stored in a separate type of storage.
15. Ramanujam does not explicitly teach a method, performed by a server, the method comprising:
causing the entity to provide a first portion of the available amount of energy to a different location in the area that is not currently receiving electrical energy from the entity.
However, Buttgenbach teaches causing the entity to provide a first portion of the available amount of energy to a different location in the area that is not currently receiving electrical energy from the entity ([Col. 18 Lines 29 – 62] Fig. 1 & 5a). Buttgenbach teaches forecasting an amount of electrical energy available from the renewable microgrid system shown in figure 1, thereby determining an available amount of energy for distribution. The system will then allocate a first electrical energy amount to a first consumer load (508) up to a first energy limit of the first consumer load [Col. 18 Lines 29 – 62]. This corresponds to providing a first portion of the available energy. After satisfying the first consumer load (508), the system will determine that additional energy remains available (510) and identifies a second consumer load (512) to which a second electrical energy amount is allocated and directed to. Due to the energy being allocated sequentially based on availability and priority, lower-priority consumer loads may initially receive no energy until excess energy is determined to be available. This means that such loads are not currently receiving electrical energy at the time the first allocation is made. Therefore, this constitutes as causing the renewable microgrid system (entity) to provide a portion of the available energy to a different location that was not previously receiving electrical energy.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ramanujam with the teachings of Buttgenbach, to preserve energy and allocate it in a way that prevents over loading to a different location.
16. Regarding claims 2, 9, & 16, Ramanujam teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
instructing, by the server, the EV to transfer a second portion of the available amount of energy to the entity from; and
causing, by the server, the entity to provide, at least a third portion of the available amount of energy…wherein the third portion is taken from the second portion.
[0021] – [0023], [0028] – [0029] Ramanujam teaches this method can be implemented into a server [0028] – [0029]. The grid (entity) will experience instability at peak times which will require a micro grid to be assembled. Micro grids are formed by receiving power from at least one or more available EVs. The grid will receive energy from the micro grid formed by one or more EVs (second portion of the available amount of energy to the entity) to help during a blackout, grid instability, or grid peak times. The grid will then provide portions of energy to the neighborhood with the help from the micro grid (third portion of the available amount of energy).
Ramanujam does not explicitly teach …to the energy storage unit,…
However, Oshima teaches …to the energy storage unit,… ([0023] Fig. 1). Oshima teaches a group of electrical energy storage devices in Figure 1 that are referenced (1a, 1b, 1z). These electrical energy storage devices can be charged with power via an AC power source which many modern electric vehicles (EVs) have and can also supply power to loads they are connected to.
Ramanujam and Oshima are analogous art because Ramanujam teaches on an entity receiving additional energy from EVs due to V2G technology and can also provide and disperse that energy while Oshima teaches on having electrical energy storage devices that can be charged with power if they are connected to a device that has an AC power source.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Oshima to modify the teachings of the combination of Ramanujam to include the teachings of Oshima to further transfer energy to energy storage units since these energy storage units may hold and store more energy or they may also be connected to buildings and important infrastructure that vehicles wouldn’t normally be connected to.
17. Regarding claims 4, 11, & 18, Ramanujam teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
directing the EV to the different location; and
instructing the EV to provide the energy to the different location [0033] - [0035], [0051]. Directing and instructing can be used interchangeably so both limitations here will apply to the same piece of prior art being mapped. Ramanujam teaches on directing/instructing EVs to travel from an origin point to a destination point (directing the EV to the different location) where the EVs can deliver the charge they have contained. In order for the EVs to travel to a destination to create a micro grid, the EV in some shape or form has to be directed/instructed to a destination to deliver power to an area currently not receiving electrical energy (a blackout) (provide the energy to the different location).
18. Regarding claims 5, 12, & 19, Ramanujam as modified by Oshima does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, comprising:
determining that the entity has an increased energy demand; and
in response to the increased energy demand, transmitting a request to one or more of the EV or the energy storage unit to provide additional energy to the entity.
However, Keefe in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
determining that the entity has an increased energy demand; and
in response to the increased energy demand, transmitting a request to one or more of the EV or the energy storage unit to provide additional energy to the entity ([0045] – [0049] Fig. 4). Keefe teaches on a power threshold needing to be met for the power grid (100) (entity). If that power threshold isn’t met, then the power grid (100) will need an increased need for energy (increased energy demand) in order to supplement the power threshold (420). In response to this, a determination is made in order to help increase the power of the power grid (100) by using electric vehicles (50) connected to the power grid as long as they meet a minimum power availability threshold (440). The electric vehicles (50) connected to the power grid will then be sent a request/command to discharge power to the power grid (100) to help provide power to the power grid (100) due to this increased need (450).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ramanujam as modified by Oshima with the teachings of Keefe, to be more responsive when help is required to alleviate an increased protocol of energy.
19. Regarding claim 8 and 15 specifically, Ramanujam teaches a system, comprising:
a processor that executes instructions stored in a memory to configure the processor to (Fig. 1): A processor (104) is included along with a memory (102).
Claim(s) 3, 10, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190143829A1 (hereinafter, “Ramanujam”), and further in view of US20100082464A1 (hereinafter, “Keefe”), and further in view of US20200408549A1 (hereinafter, “Oshima”), and further in view of US11431169B1 (hereinafter, “Buttgenbach”), and further in view of US20150137752A1 (hereinafter, “Shinzaki”).
21. Regarding claims 3, 10, & 17 Ramanujam teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
causing, the one or more of the EV or the energy storage unit to provide the energy to the different location [0026]. Ramanujam teaches on having the micro grid supply power to the neighborhood in the case of a blackout. This in itself is supplying charge to one or more locations (different location) such as houses in a neighborhood that are currently not receiving power due to the blackout.
Ramanujam as modified by Oshima and Keefe does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, comprising:
sending a notification location, the notification comprising an instruction to;
store energy in one or more of the EV or the energy storage unit; and
Shinzaki teaches sending a notification location, the notification comprising an instruction to;
store energy in one or more of the EV or the energy storage unit; and ([0030], [0075], [0113] Fig. 8) Shinzaki teaches on having EVs store excess electricity from the grid. The notification module (510) can transmit messages to the EV in order to notify the user when the EV is about to store excess charge. A deemed strategy is sent to the selected EV in the sector to store excess electricity/charge. A strategy consists of instructions and messages. Therefore, instructions/messages are sent to the EV to store excess charge.
Ramanujam and Shinzaki are analogous art because Ramanujam can supply power to locations in a neighborhood that aren’t currently receiving power in a blackout while Shinzaki teaches on communicating with EVs and sending strategies/messages to a selected EV to store excess charge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Shinzaki to modify the teachings of the combination of Ramanujam as modified by Oshima and Keefe to include the teachings of Shinzaki to more effectively communicate with the EVs and have the EV’s listen to instructions.
Claim(s) 6 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190143829A1 (hereinafter, “Ramanujam”), and further in view of US20100082464A1 (hereinafter, “Keefe”), and further in view of US20200408549A1 (hereinafter, “Oshima”), and further in view of US11431169B1 (hereinafter, “Buttgenbach”), and further in view of US20150255985A1 (hereinafter, “Higashi”).
23. Regarding claims 6 & 13, Ramanujam teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
causing the EV to provide energy to the different location [0026]; Ramanujam teaches on having the micro grid supply power to the neighborhood in the case of a blackout. This in itself is supplying charge to one or more locations such as houses in a neighborhood that are currently not receiving power due to the blackout.
monitoring a characteristic of a battery of the EV; and
in response to the characteristic exceeding or falling below a threshold,… ([0036] – [0045], [0049] Fig. 5) The battery state of charge (SoC) is being modeled which means that the battery of the vehicle is being monitored to update this model. The first electric vehicle can be considered the vehicle that was first initially chosen [0036] – [0045]. Ramanujam also teaches on monitoring the SoC and performs an action in response to the SoC has reached a certain threshold [0049]. Due to the monitoring of the SoC, this involves tracking whether the SoC rises above or falls below the threshold.
Ramanujam as modified by Oshima and Keefe does not explicitly teach …sending a request to a second EV to supply additional energy to the different location.
Higashi teaches …sending a request to a second EV to supply additional energy… ([0019], [0032]). Higashi teaches on vehicles providing and receiving electrical power from the power grid (14) (entity) [0019]. Each vehicle from each specific group that it was assigned to can receive commands. A command for a vehicle in the first group can be commanded to supply power to the power grid (14). A second command can be made to another vehicle in the second group to also supply power to the power grid (14) [0032]. Therefore, a second EV can provide the remaining energy beyond what the vehicle from the first group can provide.
Ramanujam as modified by Oshima, Keefe, and Higashi does not explicitly teach …to the different location.
However, Buttgenbach teaches …to the different location (Fig. 5A). After satisfying the first consumer load (508), the system will determine that additional energy remains available (510) and identifies a second consumer load (512) to which a second electrical energy amount is allocated and directed to. Due to the energy being allocated sequentially based on availability and priority, lower-priority consumer loads may initially receive no energy until excess energy is determined to be available. This means that such loads are not currently receiving electrical energy at the time the first allocation is made as shown in figure 5A. Therefore, this constitutes as causing the renewable microgrid system (entity) to provide a portion of the available energy to a different location that was not previously receiving electrical energy.
Ramanujam and Higashi are analogous art because Ramanujam can provide energy to locations currently not receiving energy in the midst of a blackout as well as monitor the battery’s SoC and determine if it is at a specific threshold or not while Higashi teaches on commanding a second vehicle to supply power to the power grid when needed while Buttgenbach teaches supplying additional energy to different locations based on priority.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Higashi and Buttgenbach to modify the teachings of the combination of Ramanujam as modified by Oshima and Keefe to include the teachings of Higashi and Buttgenbach to have a second vehicle finish providing power to the other location in case the first vehicle isn’t sufficient to do so as a fall-back plan.
Claim(s) 7, 14, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190143829A1 (hereinafter, “Ramanujam”), and further in view of US20100082464A1 (hereinafter, “Keefe”), and further in view of US20200408549A1 (hereinafter, “Oshima”), and further in view of US11431169B1 (hereinafter, “Buttgenbach”), and further in view of US20210288521A1 (hereinafter, “Sloop”).
25. Regarding claims 7, 14, & 20, Ramanujam teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
determining that neither the EV…is receiving the electrical energy from the entity [0025]; Data of every vehicle is mapped including the state of charge (SoC) of the battery. If the SoC of the battery is being monitored in the case where it is being charged or discharged, then it inherently can also determine the SoC of the battery in the case where it isn’t being charged. This means when a battery isn’t being charged, no electrical energy is being received from the entity. Therefore, Ramanujam can determine when a vehicle isn’t being charged.
in response to neither the EV nor the energy storage unit receiving the energy, confirming that the location is not currently receiving electrical energy from the entity; and [0036] – [0044] Ramanujam can validate this by using equations to determine the SoC of the battery to determine if the battery is charging or discharging. This implies that if the equation deems that if no charge is happening then we can validate that the battery is currently receiving no electrical energy.
Ramanujam as modified by Keefe and Uyeki does not explicitly teach …nor the energy storage unit…
However, Oshima teaches …nor the energy storage unit… ([0023], [0034] Fig. 1 & 6) Oshima teaches a group of electrical energy storage devices in Figure 1 that are referenced (1a, 1b, 1z). These electrical energy storage devices can be charged with power via an AC power source which many modern electric vehicles (EVs) have as well as other devices and can also supply power to loads they are connected to. Monitoring the charging conditions may allow detection of a non-charging state.
Ramanjumam as modified by Oshima and Keefe does not explicitly teach in response to the location not currently receiving electrical energy, generating a map showing the location.
However, Sloop teaches in response to the location not currently receiving electrical energy, generating a map showing the location ([0171] – [0172] Fig. 21A – 22A). Sloop teaches on generating maps showing the locations of power outages. These areas indicated are locations in an area that are not receiving electrical energy from an entity of some sort.
Ramanujam, Oshima, and Sloop are analogous art because Ramanujam teaches on determining if a vehicle is currently not receiving electrical energy from an entity and validating that determination. Oshima teaches on electrical energy storage devices which can simply be connected to the system and incorporated therein. Sloop teaches on generating an electricity map that can indicate power outages in an area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Sloop to modify the teachings of the combination of Ramanujam as modified by Oshima and Keefe to include the teachings of Sloop to further indicate specific locations that are currently experiencing power outages so that a user can know if their area is affected or not.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights