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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitations crossed out and the one boldened appear to be the same, please, make the correction.
claim 21, (New) The charging system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine, based at least in part on the vehicle system characteristics, the trip conditions, the energy needed for the segment of the route, and the charger characteristics: where the one or more vehicle systems receive the supply of electric power from the one or more charging stations; and how much energy the one or more vehicle systems receive the supply of electric power from the one or more charging stations.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyeki (US 2013/002188) in view of Sun et al. (US 11,724,617).
Regarding claim 1, Uyeki teaches a charging system comprising: a controller (106, 108, para 0026) configured to obtain one or more ofvehicle system characteristics (see para 0057, 0058, 0074, figs. 2-4), trip characteristics (218 of fig. 2, para 0056), and charger characteristics (see para 0066, 0074, 0076, 0078), the vehicle system characteristics corresponding to one or more vehicle systems (para 0066, 0074, 0076, 0078) and a weight of the one or more vehicle systems (see para 0057), the charger characteristics corresponding to one or more charging stations, the trip characteristics corresponding to a route traveled by the one or more vehicle systems (see 218, 220 of fig. 2, para 0057), each of the vehicle systems including an energy storage device, the controller configured to determine energy needed for a segment of the route traveled based on the vehicle system characteristics, trip characteristics, and charger characteristics (para 0056—0064, 0074, 0078), the controller configured to control a supply of electric power from the one or more charging stations to the energy storage devices of the one or more vehicle systems based at least in part on
Uyeki teaches determining charging sector parameters in determining how an EV is to be charged but fails to teach determining in detail the availability of a charging station, even though, not claimed but taught in the applicant’s specification.
Sun teaches a method for facilitating charging sessions for electric vehicle in (see figs. 1-9) wherein charging station in (see col. 13, fig. 3, fig. 5) wherein vehicle characteristics including weight and availability, charger characteristics “col. 7 line 32” col. 13 line 39-51”, and trip characteristics in (see fig. 9). Overall, Sun teaches in (see cols. 6-7, col. 13, col. 15, col. 17 line 60-col. 18), a summary of using trip, charger and vehicle parameters in determining how to charge a vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sun into Uyeki thus making it possible to effectively charge a vehicle based on characteristic associated with all parties involved in the charging process and to charge accordingly based on availability and needed power for the EV being charged.
Regarding claim 16, see the explanation as set forth in claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 -6, 8-11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyeki (US 2013/002188) in view of Sun et al. (US 11,724,617) and Telpaz et al. (US 11,780,346).
Regarding claim 2, The combination including Sun teaches making reservations for a charger in (see figs. 3/5) but fails to teach the detail comprising wherein the controller is configured to operate with one or more of a vehicle energy management system, a dispatch system, or a scheduling system to determine anticipated energy needs of the one or more vehicle systems required for a trip, the controller configured to control the supply of the electric power from the one or more charging stations to the energy storage devices of the one or more vehicle systems based at least in part on the anticipated energy needs of the one or more vehicles.
Telpaz teaches wherein the controller (130 of fig. 1) is configured to operate with one or more of a vehicle energy management system, a dispatch system, or a scheduling system (see para 6 lines 63-67) to determine anticipated energy needs of the one or more vehicle systems required for a trip (see cols. 6-7, table 3, ), the controller configured to control the supply of the electric power from the one or more charging stations to the energy storage devices of the one or more vehicle systems based at least in part on the anticipated energy needs of the one or more vehicles (col. 4, cols. 8-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Telpaz into that of the combination thus making it possible to schedule trips and be able to reserve chargers for the convenience along the trip or at certain destinations.
Regarding claim 3, The combination fails to wherein the controller is configured to determine a charging profile for one or more of the vehicle systems to charge the one or more energy storage devices at the one or more charging stations based at least in part on one or more of the vehicle system characteristics or the charger characteristics.
Telpaz teaches charging system wherein the controller is configured to determine a charging profile for one or more of the vehicle systems to charge the one or more energy storage devices at the one or more charging stations based at least in part on one or more of the vehicle system characteristics or the charger characteristics in (see abstract, figs. 1-3, cols. 4-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Telpaz into the combination thus making it possible to determine the status or SOC or agility of batteries and to make charging decisions according to routes, trips to meet the needs of users.
Regarding claim 4, The combination including Telpaz teaches in (see figs. and cols. 6 and 9) wherein the controller is configured to determine a schedule for one or more of the vehicle systems to charge the one or more energy storage devices at the one or more charging stations based on one or more of the vehicle system characteristics or the charger characteristics.
Regarding claim 5, The combination including Telpaz teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a change to a trip plan based on user input for one or more of the vehicle systems, the trip plan including operational settings of the one or more vehicle systems designated for one or more of different times, different locations, or different distances along one or more routes (navigational route based GPS, see col. 4, col. 6, Table 3), the controller configured to control the supply of the electric power to the one or more energy storage devices to charge the one or more energy storage devices at the one or more charging stations based at least in part on the change to the trip plan in (see col. 4, col. 6-7, Table 3, cols. 9-10). Note that the trip data could be different than previously stored trip information
Regarding claim 6, The combination including Telpaz teaches in wherein the controller is configured to determine the change to the trip plan based at least in part on one or more of a charging rate for one or more of the charging station or the energy storage device, or a discharging rate of one or more of the vehicle systems in (see col. 9).
Regarding claim 8, The combination including Telpaz teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the supply of the electric power from the one or more charging stations to the one or more energy storage devices based at least in part on a power capacity of the one or more charging stations in (see col. 4, col 9 lines 52-62) .
Regarding claim 9, The combination including Telpaz teaches wherein the controller is configured to allocate a supply of the electric power of one or more of the charging stations among two or more of the vehicle systems based at least in part on one or more of the vehicle system characteristics or the charger characteristics in (see col. 9) wherein services can be provided to charge the batteries of multiple vehicles in (see col. 4 lines 45-67) .
Regarding claim 10, The combination including Telpaz teaches wherein the controller is configured to allocate the supply of the electric power among the two or more vehicle systems, read by the examiner as being a charging station capable of charging two or more vehicles by preventing the energy storage device onboard at least one of the vehicle systems from charging to a full state of charge (see col. 9 lines 11-16) before the at least one of the vehicle systems leaves the one or more charging stations in (not given weight because after charging the vehicle pulls off) wherein a battery can be charged to a predetermined value without being fully charged to its full capacity of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, The combination including Telpaz teaches in (see col. 9 lines 11-16) wherein the controller is configured to prevent the energy storage device of the at least one of the vehicle systems from charging to the full state of charge by implementing a charging limit on the energy storage device of the at least one vehicle system
Regarding claim 13, The combination including Telpaz teaches wherein the controller is configured to obtain one or more environmental characteristics and to change a charging profile at which one or more of the charging stations charge the one or more energy storage devices of the one or more vehicle systems based at least in part on the one or more environmental characteristics in (see table 2, col. 5-6, col. 8-9).
Regarding claim 14, The combination including Telpaz teaches wherein the controller is configured to predict a state of charge of one or more of the energy storage devices of the one or more vehicle systems prior to the one or more vehicle systems arriving at the one or more charging stations based at least in part on the vehicle system characteristics, done based on data analysis in (see 129 of fig. 1, 208 of fig. 2, col. 6, col. 9 lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 17, The combination including Telpaz teaches further comprising: determining a charging profile for the one or more vehicle systems to charge the one or more energy storage devices at the one or more charging stations, the charging profile including a power capacity of the one or more energy storage devices (see cols. 6-10), also, the battery prediction can be used in determining attributes of the battery; and controlling the supply of electric power from the one or more charging stations to the one or more energy storage devices based at least in part on the charging profile for the one or more energy storage devices in (see cols. 6-10).
Regarding claim 18, The combination including Telpaz teaches further comprising allocating the supply of the electric power among two or more vehicle systems, read by the examiner as a charging station capable of being able to charge multiple vehicles, and also, “by” preventing the energy storage device of at least one of the vehicle systems from charging to a full state of charge before the at least one vehicle system leaves the one or more charging stations, read by the examiners as limiting the charge to a battery based on predetermined criteria such as preventing a battery from being fully charged in (see col. 9). Also, note that the combination including Uyeki teaches charging an EV to a minimum charge in (abstract).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyeki (US 2013/002188) in view of Sun et al. (US 11,724,617) and Telpaz et al. (US 11,780,346) and Maeda et al. (US 2023/0234468).
Regarding claim 19, The combination fails to teach further comprising: predicting a state of charge of one or more energy storage devices of the one or more vehicle systems prior to the one or more vehicle systems arriving at the one or more charging stations; and assigning the one or more vehicle systems to one or more of the charging stations based at least in part on the state of charge of the one or more energy storage devices.
Maeda et al. teaches a systems and method for selecting a charging entity based on occupancy in (see para 0063, 0068-0071 and see fig. 4 @ 404, 406) wherein the SOC can be charged in determining the charging entity required to charge an EV.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Maeda into the combination thus making it possible to attend to the needs of EVs based on the SOC and proximity of charging station to which an EV can be referred to avoid being stranded.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyeki et al. (US 2013/002188) in view of Maeda et al. (US 2023/0234468).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Uyeki et al. teaches in (figs. 1-7), a vehicle charging system, comprising: one or more charging stations (110 of fig. 1) configured to supply electric power to an energy storage device of a vehicle system; and a controller (106, 108) configured to control the supply of the electric power from the one or more charging stations to the energy storage device of the vehicle system based at least in part ona route traveled by the one or more vehicle systems (see 218, 220 of fig. 2, para 0057),, ,the controller configured to determine energy needed for a segment of the route traveled based on the vehicle system characteristics, trip characteristics, and charger characteristics
Maeda et al. the controller (118 @ fig 4 with elements 402, 404, 406, 408, 410) configured to predict a state of charge of the energy storage device of the vehicle system prior to the vehicle system arriving at the one or more charging stations based at least in part on the vehicle system characteristics and the trip characteristics and the controller configured to assign the vehicle system to at least one of the one or more charging stations based at least in part on the state of charge of the energy storage device in (see fig. 4, para 0048, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0071). Note that the SOC determinant communicates with a processor which stores data affiliated with a vehicle and historical routes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Maeda into that of the combination thus making it possible to locate the nearest charging station based on the vehicle, route and other data relevant to how urgent the vehicle should be charged and then picking the nearest charging station to avoid being stranded.
Regarding claim 7, The combination including Maeda teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the supply of the electric power from the one or more charging stations to the one or more energy storage devices based at least in part on one or more of a utilization status or an availability status of the one or more charging stations in (see para 0043-0047, 0071-0076).
Regarding claim 21, see the explanation as set forth regarding claim 20. The combination including Uyeki teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine, based at least in part on the vehicle system characteristics, the trip conditions, the energy needed for the segment of the route, and the charger characteristics: when the one or more vehicle systems receive the supply of electric power from the one or more charging stations; where the one or more vehicle systems receive the supply of electric power from the one or more charging stations; and how much energy the one or more vehicle systems receive the supply of electric power from the one or more charging stations in (see para 0056-0060, para 0066, 0076-0080 of Uyeki and so forth).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyeki et al. (US 2013/002188) in view of Maeda et al. (US 2023/0234468) in view of Cun (US 2015/0321570).
Regarding claim 12, The combination fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to obtain energy storage characteristics of the one or more energy storage devices that include charging profiles of the energy storage devices, the controller configured to predict one or more of a remaining useful life of the energy storage devices, reduced performance of the energy storage devices, failures in the energy storage devices, or a change in a maximum state of charge of the energy storage devices based at least in part on the energy storage characteristics of the one or more energy storage devices.
The examiner construes the boldened limitations as optional or would be interpreted as the state of health. Furthermore, note that controllers in (see fig. 1 of Telpaz) can communicate charging profile with one another.
Cun teaches a battery and a charging management system in (see para 0034) wherein a controller can determine a state of health data in (see para 0042 which can be used in determining charging parameters in (see para 0044). Cun teaches an electric vehicle charging control system in (see figs. 4-5, para 0034) teaches being able to determine utilization status or availability of one or more charging station in (see para 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Cun into that of the combination thus making it possible to take into consideration battery parameters such as SOC and SOH to ensure that the longevity of the batteries without overcharging them or overworking them to avoid failure to your loads.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 Rex Barnie whose telephone number is (571)272-7492. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM
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.
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.
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights