DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
FIG. 5 contains a decision block ('Timer expired?') that lacks a reference numeral; fails to depict the NO branch of said decision block; and depicts a loop arrow exiting process block 550 back to process block 530 without an intervening decision block indicating the condition under which the loop is triggered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7: the abbreviation "CPMS" is set off by hyphens ("--CPMS--") rather than parentheses.
Claim 18: the abbreviation "CPMS" is used without introduction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Step 1
Claims 1–11 are directed to a computer-implemented method without significantly more. Claims 12–20 are directed to a computing device without significantly more. Thus, the claims are directed to a process and a machine, each of which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding claims 1 and 12, representative claim 12 recites:
receiving a notification of an event related to a charging session at a charging station, the charging station being subjected to load management; [the examiner finds that the foregoing element recites a certain method of organizing human activity because it defines a triggering condition governing the initiation of commercial resource management activity between networked systems]
calculating an available charging current at the charging station; [the examiner finds that the foregoing element recites a mathematical concept because it involves applying mathematical relationships to numerical inputs to derive a numerical current value from available supply and load data]
determining a charging profile for the charging station based on the available charging current at the charging station; [the examiner finds that the foregoing elements recite a mathematical concept because they involve mapping a derived numerical current value to a set of charging parameters to produce a defined output]
sending the charging profile to the charging station, wherein the charging profile is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time; [the examiner finds that the foregoing elements recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they specify rules governing the dispatch and temporal validity of the charging resource allocation — a method of organizing commercial resource management activity between networked systems]
instructing the charging station to implement the charging profile, set a timer with the predefined amount of time, and implement a default profile at the expiration of the timer; [the examiner finds that the foregoing elements recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they define rules governing how charging resources are allocated, enforced, and recovered — a method of organizing commercial resource management activity between networked systems]
re-sending the charging profile to the charging station; [the examiner finds that the foregoing element recites a certain method of organizing human activity because it specifies a rule governing the periodic refresh of the charging resource allocation]
instructing the charging station to reset the timer each time the charging profile is re-sent; [the examiner finds that the foregoing element recites a certain method of organizing human activity because it specifies a rule governing timer reset upon each re-send of the charging profile]
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because
the following additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: "computer-implemented method"; "at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising." The claims invoke computers merely as a tool to execute the abstract load management rules; the computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the practice of the abstract idea.
the following additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use: "a charging session"; "the charging station being subjected to load management." These limitations confine the abstract ideas to the EV charging context but do not alter the nature of those ideas or amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 2 and 13 recite
wherein re-sending the charging profile comprises re-sending the charging profile at a regular interval.
The limitation simply further defines the abstract idea — it adds only a frequency parameter to the already-abstract re-sending rule — and, thus, does not make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Claims 3, 9, and 14 recite
wherein the event is a new charging session or an end of a charging session.
The limitation simply further defines the abstract idea — it narrows which events qualify under the abstract triggering condition without tying the claims to any concrete practical application — and, thus, does not make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Claims 4 and 15 recite
wherein the default profile is set to a minimum power.
The limitation simply further defines the abstract idea — it specifies a numerical boundary value for the output of the abstract fallback rule — and, thus, does not make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Claims 5 and 16 recite
wherein the minimum power is zero.
The limitation simply further defines the abstract idea — it assigns a specific numerical value to the fallback charging parameter defined in the parent claim — and, thus, does not make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Claims 6 and 17 recite
receiving a notification of a new event at the charging station;
calculating a new available charging current at the charging station;
determining a new charging profile for the charging station based on the new available charging current at the charging station;
sending the new charging profile to the charging station, wherein the new charging profile is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time;
instructing the charging station to implement the new charging profile, and reset the timer with the predefined amount of time;
re-sending the new charging profile to the charging station;
and instructing the charging station to reset the timer each time the new charging profile is re-sent.
The limitations simply further define the abstract idea — they reiterate the identical abstract load management framework for a subsequent triggering event without introducing any concrete element — and, thus, do not make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding claims 7 and 18, representative claim 18 recites:
detecting an event related to a charging session at a charging station subjected to load management; [the examiner finds that the foregoing element recites a certain method of organizing human activity because it defines a triggering condition governing the initiation of commercial resource management activity between networked systems]
sending a notification to a CPMS; [the examiner finds that the foregoing element recites a certain method of organizing human activity because it specifies a rule governing communication of charging session events to the central resource management system]
receiving a charging profile from the CPMS, wherein the charging profile is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time; [the examiner finds that the foregoing elements recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they specify rules governing the receipt and temporal validity of the charging resource allocation — a method of organizing commercial resource management activity between networked systems]
implementing the charging profile at the charging station; [the examiner finds that the foregoing element recites a certain method of organizing human activity because it specifies a rule governing execution of the received charging resource allocation at the station]
setting a timer with the predefined amount of time; [the examiner finds that the foregoing element recites a certain method of organizing human activity because it specifies a rule governing time-limited enforcement of the charging resource allocation]
resetting the timer each time the charging profile is received again from the CPMS; [the examiner finds that the foregoing element recites a certain method of organizing human activity because it specifies a rule governing timer reset upon re-receipt of the charging profile.]
implementing a default profile at the charging station at the expiration of the timer; [the examiner finds that the foregoing element recites a certain method of organizing human activity because it specifies a rule governing fallback to safe default charging behavior upon expiration of the active profile's validity window]
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because
the following additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: "at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising." The claims invoke computers merely as a tool to execute the abstract load management rules; the computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the practice of the abstract idea.
the following additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use: "a charging station subjected to load management." This limitation confines the abstract ideas to the EV charging context but does not alter the nature of those ideas or amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 8 and 19 recite
wherein the default profile is stored at the charging station.
The limitation simply further defines the abstract idea — it specifies an operational detail of the abstract fallback rule governing where the default configuration resides within the resource management framework — and, thus, does not make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Claim 10 recites
wherein the default profile is set to a minimum power or to zero power.
The limitation simply further defines the abstract idea — it specifies a numerical boundary value, or the specific value of zero, for the output of the abstract fallback rule — and, thus, does not make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is merely an incidental or token addition to the claims that does not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Claims 11 and 20 recite
detecting a new event at the charging station; sending a new notification to the CPMS;
receiving a new charging profile from the CPMS, wherein the new charging profile is configured to expire after the predefined amount of time;
implementing the new charging profile at the charging station;
and resetting the timer each time the new charging profile is received from the CPMS.
The limitations simply further define the abstract idea — they reiterate the identical abstract load management framework for a subsequent triggering event on the station side without introducing any concrete element — and, thus, do not make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
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 19 and 20 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.
Claims 19 and 20 recites the limitation "the computer-implemented method of claim 18". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is indefinite because claim 19 and 20 are method claims, which depend from an apparatus claim. It is unclear which method steps in claim 18 are incorporated into claims 19 and 20.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Dependent method claims 19 and 20 are improper because they only incorporate the method steps of claim 18. A dependent claim must incorporate all of the limitations from the parent claim, including the recited apparatus of the processor and memory.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAMOJEDEN et al. (US 2018/0334040 A1), and in view of OCPP 2.0.1 (Open Charge Alliance, Open Charge Point Protocol 2.0.1, Part 2 — Specification, FINAL, Mar. 31, 2020).
Claims 1 and 12
Regarding claims 1 and 12, SAMOJEDEN discloses receiving a notification of an event related to a charging session at a charging station, the charging station being subjected to load management (see Par. [0038]: “The plurality of EV chargers 130 communicate with the server 510 over the communication network 160 to provide the charging information.”)
SAMOJEDEN further discloses calculating an available charging current at the charging station (see Par. [0039]: “The server 510 analyzes the charging information received from the plurality of EV chargers 130 within the geographic boundary to optimize the load on the power grid 120 … The server 510 analyzes the charging information received from the plurality of EV chargers 130 to delay and distribute the load across the plurality of EV chargers 130 within the geographic boundary.”)
Furthermore, SAMOJEDEN discloses determining a charging profile for the charging station based on the available charging current at the charging station (see Par. [0039]: “The server 510 generates a charging profile for each of the plurality of EV chargers 130 based on the charging information received from the plurality of EV chargers 130. The charging profile may include … the amount of current draw (i.e., charge rating) the EV charger 130 should use … The charging profiles are generated to minimize the load on the power grid 120.”)
SAMOJEDEN further discloses sending the charging profile to the charging station, instructing the charging station to implement the charging profile, and re-sending the charging profile to the charging station (see Par. [0040]: “The server 510 transmits a charging profile assigned to a particular EV charger 130 to that EV charger 130 over the communication network 160. The EV charger 130 implements the charging profile upon receiving the charging profile 160 from the server 510.”)
Furthermore, SAMOJEDEN discloses a computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code configured to perform the operations recited in claim 12 (see Par. [0034]–[0035]: “the EV charger 130 includes a server electronic processor 610, a server memory 620, a server transceiver 630 … The server memory 620 may store instructions that are received and executed by the server electronic processor 610 to carry out the functionality described herein.”)
SAMOJEDEN is silent to wherein the charging profile is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time, set a timer with the predefined amount of time, implement a default profile at the expiration of the timer, and instructing the charging station to reset the timer each time the charging profile is re-sent.
OCPP 2.0.1 discloses wherein the charging profile is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time (see ChargingProfileType, field validTo, p. 373: “Optional. Point in time at which the profile stops to be valid. If absent, the profile is valid until it is replaced by another profile.”)
OCPP 2.0.1 further discloses set a timer with the predefined amount of time (see K01.FR.37: “When validTo of a ChargingProfile is set, the Charging Station SHALL consider the ChargingProfile to be valid when current time < validTo.”)
Furthermore, OCPP 2.0.1 discloses implement a default profile at the expiration of the timer (see K06.FR.02: “If the Charging Station goes Offline, without having any charging profiles, the Charging Station SHALL execute the transaction as if no constraints apply.”)
OCPP 2.0.1 further discloses instructing the charging station to reset the timer each time the charging profile is re-sent (see K01.FR.05: “When a SetChargingProfileRequest with an already known ChargingProfile.id is received, the Charging Station SHALL replace the existing ChargingProfile with the one specified.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate OCPP 2.0.1’s SetChargingProfile validity period and fallback behavior into SAMOJEDEN’s server-to-charger profile transmission framework, to provide communication-loss resilience by ensuring that charging stations revert to safe default charging behavior when CSMS contact is interrupted and no valid profile remains active. Such a combination would result in a system that sends a charging profile configured to expire after a predefined amount of time, instructs the charging station to set a timer and implement a default profile upon expiration, and instructs the charging station to reset the timer upon each re-send of the profile.
Claims 2 and 13
Regarding claims 2 and 13, SAMOJEDEN does not explicitly disclose wherein re-sending the charging profile comprises resending the charging profile at a regular interval (see Par. [0040]: “The server 510 transmits a charging profile assigned to a particular EV charger 130 to that EV charger 130 over the communication network 160.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to implement SAMOJEDEN’s periodic profile retransmission at a fixed regular interval into SAMOJEDEN’s server-to-charger profile framework, to reliably maintain the validity window established by OCPP 2.0.1’s validTo mechanism and prevent inadvertent profile expiration during continuous charging operations.
Claims 3, 9, and 14
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 14, SAMOJEDEN does not explicitly disclose wherein the event is a new charging session or an end of a charging session (see Par. [0038]: “The plurality of EV chargers 130 communicate with the server 510 over the communication network 160 to provide the charging information. The charging information includes, for example, … a state of charge of an electric vehicle 140 being charged by the EV charger 130 …”)
Claims 4 and 15
Regarding claims 4 and 15, SAMOJEDEN is silent to wherein the default profile is set to a minimum power.
OCPP 2.0.1 discloses wherein the default profile is set to a minimum power (see ChargingSchedulePeriodType, field limit, p. 373: “Required. Charging rate limit during the schedule period, in the applicable chargingRateUnit, for example in Amperes (A) or Watts (W). Accepts at most one digit fraction (e.g. 8.1).”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to configure the default fallback profile in SAMOJEDEN’s charging station framework to a minimum power level, to protect grid infrastructure from uncontrolled load while permitting continued charging at a safe reduced rate upon loss of CSMS communication.
Claims 5 and 16
Regarding claims 5 and 16, SAMOJEDEN is silent to wherein the minimum power is zero.
OCPP 2.0.1 discloses a charging rate limit value of zero as a valid parameter (see ChargingSchedulePeriodType, field limit, p. 373: “Required. Charging rate limit during the schedule period, in the applicable chargingRateUnit, for example in Amperes (A) or Watts (W). Accepts at most one digit fraction (e.g. 8.1).”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to set the minimum power of the default fallback profile in SAMOJEDEN’s charging station framework to zero, to immediately halt charging upon loss of CSMS communication and thereby eliminate any uncontrolled load on the electrical distribution network.
Claims 6 and 17
Regarding claims 6 and 17, SAMOJEDEN discloses receiving a notification of a new event at the charging station (see Par. [0038]: “The plurality of EV chargers 130 communicate with the server 510 over the communication network 160 to provide the charging information.”)
SAMOJEDEN further discloses calculating a new available charging current at the charging station (see Par. [0039]: “The server 510 analyzes the charging information received from the plurality of EV chargers 130 within the geographic boundary to optimize the load on the power grid 120 … The server 510 analyzes the charging information received from the plurality of EV chargers 130 to delay and distribute the load across the plurality of EV chargers 130 within the geographic boundary.”)
Furthermore, SAMOJEDEN discloses determining a new charging profile for the charging station based on the new available charging current at the charging station (see Par. [0039]: “The server 510 generates a charging profile for each of the plurality of EV chargers 130 based on the charging information received from the plurality of EV chargers 130. The charging profile may include … the amount of current draw (i.e., charge rating) the EV charger 130 should use … The charging profiles are generated to minimize the load on the power grid 120.”)
SAMOJEDEN further discloses sending the new charging profile to the charging station, instructing the charging station to implement the new charging profile, and re-sending the new charging profile to the charging station (see Par. [0040]: “The server 510 transmits a charging profile assigned to a particular EV charger 130 to that EV charger 130 over the communication network 160. The EV charger 130 implements the charging profile upon receiving the charging profile 160 from the server 510.”)
SAMOJEDEN is silent to wherein the new charging profile is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time, reset the timer with the predefined amount of time, and instructing the charging station to reset the timer each time the new charging profile is re-sent.
OCPP 2.0.1 discloses wherein the new charging profile is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time (see ChargingProfileType, field validTo, p. 373: “Optional. Point in time at which the profile stops to be valid. If absent, the profile is valid until it is replaced by another profile.”)
OCPP 2.0.1 further discloses reset the timer with the predefined amount of time (see K01.FR.37: “When validTo of a ChargingProfile is set, the Charging Station SHALL consider the ChargingProfile to be valid when current time < validTo.”)
Furthermore, OCPP 2.0.1 discloses instructing the charging station to reset the timer each time the new charging profile is re-sent (see K01.FR.05: “When a SetChargingProfileRequest with an already known ChargingProfile.id is received, the Charging Station SHALL replace the existing ChargingProfile with the one specified.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate OCPP 2.0.1’s SetChargingProfile validity period and fallback behavior into SAMOJEDEN’s server-to-charger profile transmission framework, to provide communication-loss resilience by ensuring that charging stations revert to safe default charging behavior when CSMS contact is interrupted and no valid profile remains active. Such a combination would result in a system that sends a charging profile configured to expire after a predefined amount of time, instructs the charging station to set a timer and implement a default profile upon expiration, and instructs the charging station to reset the timer upon each re-send of the profile.
Claims 7 and 18
Regarding claims 7 and 18, SAMOJEDEN discloses detecting an event related to a charging session at a charging station subjected to load management (see Par. [0038]: “The plurality of EV chargers 130 communicate with the server 510 over the communication network 160 to provide the charging information. The charging information includes, for example, … a state of charge of an electric vehicle 140 being charged by the EV charger 130 …”)
SAMOJEDEN further discloses sending a notification to a Charging Point Management System —CPMS— (see Par. [0038]: “The plurality of EV chargers 130 communicate with the server 510 over the communication network 160 to provide the charging information.”)
Furthermore, SAMOJEDEN discloses receiving a charging profile from the CPMS, and implementing the charging profile at the charging station (see Par. [0040]: “The EV charger 130 implements the charging profile upon receiving the charging profile 160 from the server 510.”)
SAMOJEDEN further discloses a computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code configured to perform the operations recited in claim 18 (see Par. [0018]–[0019]: “the EV charger 130 includes an electronic processor 210, a memory 220, a transceiver 230, and a charging circuit 240 … the memory 220 includes non-transitory, computer-readable memory that stores instructions that are received and executed by the electronic processor 210 to carry out functionality of the EV charger 130 described herein.”)
SAMOJEDEN is silent to wherein the charging profile is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time, setting a timer with the predefined amount of time, resetting the timer each time the charging profile is received again from the CPMS, and implementing a default profile at the charging station at the expiration of the timer.
OCPP 2.0.1 discloses wherein the charging profile is configured to expire after a predefined amount of time (see ChargingProfileType, field validTo, p. 373: “Optional. Point in time at which the profile stops to be valid. If absent, the profile is valid until it is replaced by another profile.”)
OCPP 2.0.1 further discloses setting a timer with the predefined amount of time (see K01.FR.37: “When validTo of a ChargingProfile is set, the Charging Station SHALL consider the ChargingProfile to be valid when current time < validTo.”)
Furthermore, OCPP 2.0.1 discloses resetting the timer each time the charging profile is received again from the CPMS (see K01.FR.05: “When a SetChargingProfileRequest with an already known ChargingProfile.id is received, the Charging Station SHALL replace the existing ChargingProfile with the one specified.”)
OCPP 2.0.1 further discloses implementing a default profile at the charging station at the expiration of the timer (see K01.FR.37: “When validTo of a ChargingProfile is set, the Charging Station SHALL consider the ChargingProfile to be valid when current time < validTo.”; see K06.FR.02: “If the Charging Station goes Offline, without having any charging profiles, the Charging Station SHALL execute the transaction as if no constraints apply.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate OCPP 2.0.1’s SetChargingProfile validity period and fallback behavior into SAMOJEDEN’s station-side profile implementation framework, to provide communication-loss resilience by ensuring that the charging station maintains safe default charging behavior upon expiration of the active profile’s validity window. Such a combination would result in a system in which the charging station receives a charging profile configured to expire, sets a timer based on the expiration, resets the timer upon re-receipt of the profile, and implements a default profile upon timer expiration.
Claims 8 and 19
Regarding claims 8 and 19, SAMOJEDEN is silent to wherein the default profile is stored at the charging station.
OCPP 2.0.1 discloses wherein the default profile is stored at the charging station (see K01.FR.27: “ChargingProfiles set via SetChargingProfileRequest SHALL be persistent across reboots/power cycles.”; see K07.FR.01: “If a Charging Station goes Offline before a transaction is started or before a transaction-specific ChargingProfile with purpose TxProfile was received, the Charging Station SHALL use the charging profiles which are available.”)
K01.FR.27 requires all installed profiles to be persisted locally on the Charging Station. K07.FR.01 confirms the station draws upon locally stored profiles when offline, establishing that the default fallback profile is stored at the station. It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to rely upon SAMOJEDEN’s charging station’s locally stored OCPP profiles as the default fallback configuration, to ensure that safe charging behavior is applied upon CSMS communication loss without requiring a live connection to retrieve the profile.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, SAMOJEDEN is silent to wherein the default profile is set to a minimum power or to zero power.
OCPP 2.0.1 discloses a charging rate limit at a minimum power or zero power value (see ChargingSchedulePeriodType, field limit, p. 373: “Required. Charging rate limit during the schedule period, in the applicable chargingRateUnit, for example in Amperes (A) or Watts (W). Accepts at most one digit fraction (e.g. 8.1).”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to configure the station-side default fallback profile in SAMOJEDEN’s charging station framework to a minimum power or zero power level, for the same reasons established for claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 above.
Claims 11 and 20
Regarding claims 11 and 20, SAMOJEDEN discloses detecting a new event at the charging station (see Par. [0038]: “The plurality of EV chargers 130 communicate with the server 510 over the communication network 160 to provide the charging information. The charging information includes, for example, … a state of charge of an electric vehicle 140 being charged by the EV charger 130 …”)
SAMOJEDEN further discloses sending a new notification to the CPMS (see Par. [0038]: “The plurality of EV chargers 130 communicate with the server 510 over the communication network 160 to provide the charging information.”)
Furthermore, SAMOJEDEN discloses receiving a new charging profile from the CPMS, and implementing the new charging profile at the charging station (see Par. [0040]: “The EV charger 130 implements the charging profile upon receiving the charging profile 160 from the server 510.”)
SAMOJEDEN is silent to wherein the new charging profile is configured to expire after the predefined amount of time, and resetting the timer each time the new charging profile is received from the CPMS.
OCPP 2.0.1 discloses wherein the new charging profile is configured to expire after the predefined amount of time (see ChargingProfileType, field validTo, p. 373: “Optional. Point in time at which the profile stops to be valid. If absent, the profile is valid until it is replaced by another profile.”)
OCPP 2.0.1 further discloses resetting the timer each time the new charging profile is received from the CPMS (see K01.FR.05: “When a SetChargingProfileRequest with an already known ChargingProfile.id is received, the Charging Station SHALL replace the existing ChargingProfile with the one specified.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate OCPP 2.0.1’s SetChargingProfile validity period and profile replacement behavior into SAMOJEDEN’s station-side profile implementation framework, to provide communication-loss resilience by ensuring that the charging station maintains safe default charging behavior upon expiration of the active profile’s validity window. Such a combination would result in a system in which the charging station receives a new charging profile configured to expire, and resets the timer upon re-receipt of the profile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIQUE JOHANN DJANAL-MANN whose telephone number is (571)272-4697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D. JOHANN DJANAL-MANN/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights