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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11890960. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are covered by the reference claims.
Current Application: 18/183,471
US Patent: 11,890,960
Claim 1:
A system, comprising:
one or more processors coupled with memory to: identify a setting for a first charger and for a second charger, the first charger and the second charger coupled with a phase line of an electrical panel to conduct power at a first phase;
determine that the phase line is configured to operate below a phase line capacity of the phase line while the first charger coupled with the phase line operates at a charger capacity of the first charger;
cause the first charger to operate at the charger capacity according to the setting in response to determining that the phase line is configured to operate below the phase line capacity while the first charger coupled with the phase line operates at the charger capacity.
Claim 1:
A system, comprising:
one or more processors coupled with memory to: identify a configuration indicating a plurality of chargers coupled with a first line of an electrical panel to conduct power at a first phase and a second line of the electrical panel to conduct power at a second phase different than the first phase; present, for display via a graphical user interface, the configuration identifying a sum of individual power capacities of a subset of the plurality of chargers exceeding the power capacity of the electrical panel;
cause, based on the configuration and operational characteristics associated with one or more of the plurality of chargers, a controller to deliver power to a charger of the plurality of chargers via the first line and the second line based on the power capacity of the electrical panel; and cause power to be delivered to the charger of the subset of the plurality of chargers in accordance with an order in which the charger of the subset is activated, the charger of the subset configured to be activated prior to a second charger of the subset and to operate at the individual power capacity of the charger.
Claim 9:
A method, comprising:
identifying, by a data processing system, a configuration indicating a power capacity of an electrical panel and a plurality of chargers coupled with a first line of the electrical panel to conduct power at a first phase and a second line of the electrical panel to conduct power at a second phase different than the first phase; presenting, for display via a graphical user interface, the configuration identifying a sum of individual power capacities of a subset of the plurality of chargers exceeding the power capacity of the electrical panel;
causing, based on the configuration and operational characteristics associated with one or more of the plurality of chargers, a controller to deliver power to a charger of the plurality of chargers via the first line or the second line based on the power capacity of the electrical panel; and
causing, by the data processing system, the controller to deliver power to the charger of the subset of the plurality of chargers in accordance with an order in which the charger of the subset is activated, the charger activated prior to a second charger of the subset and configured to operate at the individual power capacity of the charger.
Claim 10:
A method, comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors coupled with memory, a setting for a first charger and for a second charger, the first charger and the second charger coupled with a phase line of an electrical panel to conduct power at a first phase;
determining, by the one or more processors, that the phase line is configured to operate below a phase line capacity of the phase line while the first charger coupled with the phase line operates at a charger capacity of the first charger; and
causing, by the one or more processors, the first charger to operate at the charger capacity according to the setting in response to determining that the phase line is configured to operate below the phase line capacity while the first charger coupled with the phase line operates at the charger capacity.
Claim 19:
A non-transitory computer-readable media having processor readable instructions, such that, when executed, cause a processor to: identify a setting for a first charger and for a second charger, the first charger and the second charger coupled with a phase line of an electrical panel to conduct power at a first phase;
determine that the phase line is configured to operate below a phase line capacity of the phase line while the first charger coupled with the phase line operates at a charger capacity of the first charger;
cause the first charger to operate at the charger capacity according to the setting in response to determining that the phase line is configured to operate below the phase line capacity while the first charger coupled with the phase line operates at the charger capacity.
Claim 17:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having processor readable instructions, such that, when executed, causes a processor to identify a configuration indicating a power capacity of an electrical panel and a plurality of chargers coupled with a first line of the electrical panel to conduct power at a first phase and a second line of the electrical panel to conduct power at a second phase different than the first phase; present, for display via a graphical user interface, the configuration identifying a sum of individual power capacities of a subset of the plurality of chargers exceeding the power capacity of the electrical panel;
cause, based on the configuration and operational characteristics associated with one or more of the plurality of chargers, a controller to deliver power to a charger of the plurality of chargers via the first line and the second line based on the power capacity of the electrical panel; and
cause power to be delivered to the charger of the subset of the Plurality of chargers in accordance with an order in which the charger of the subset is activated, the charger of the subset configured to be activated prior to a second charger of the subset and to operate at the individual power capacity of the charger.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to an Abstract Idea, namely managing and allocating electrical power capacity based on comparisons to capacity thresholds.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception
Claim 1 is directed to an Abstract Idea. Claim 1 recites:
Identifying a setting for chargers;
Determining whether a phase line is operating below a capacity threshold; and
Causing operation of a charger based on the determination.
These limitations collectively describe collecting information, evaluating the information,
and taking action based on the evaluation, which constitutes mental processes and mathematical concepts, such as resource allocation and threshold comparison, that can be performed by a human using pen and paper or a generic computer.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
The claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add meaningful limitation to the Abstract idea. Although the claims reference physical components, these components are recited a high level of generality and merely serve as generic components of the abstract decision-making process. The claims do not recite:
any specific electrical control mechanisms,
any non-conventional power regulation techniques, or
any improvement to the operation of chargers, phase lines, or electrical panels themselves.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept:
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites:
“one or more processors coupled with memory,” and
generic functional steps such as identifying, determining, and causing operation.
These elements are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The dependent claims similarly recite conventional variations of power allocation, such as equalizing power, applying offsets, or responding to sequential activation, which are also routine resource-management techniques.
Accordingly, the claims as a whole do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
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.
The term “substantially” in claims 4, 6, 13, and 15, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially” is often used in conjunction with another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention. It is a broad term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jefferies (US 20220396168).
Regarding claim 1, Jefferies teaches a system (figures 1 and 1A item 100 defined as a charging station),
comprising: one or more processors (figure 1 item 102 a processor; figure 1A processor 122) coupled with memory (figure 1 item 104 a memory; figure 1A memory item 124) to: identify a setting for a first charger and for a second charger, the first charger and the second charger coupled with a phase line of an electrical panel to conduct power at a first phase (Figure 1 shows chargers item 110 (with cordset 108) coupled with a phase line, L1 and L2 of an electrical panel (three phase power IA, IB, and IC). Figure 1A shows first and second chargers 108, coupled to electrical panels figure 1 and 1A paragraph [0033] discloses a processor receiving a signal “S” identifying a charger phase of a three-phase power source);
determine that the phase line is configured to operate below a phase line capacity of the phase line while the first charger coupled with the phase line operates at a charger capacity of the first charger (Paragraphs [0048]-[0049] teaches wherein the settings of the charger or EVSE is determined, which represents the phase line capacity or available current of the phase line. Paragraph [0055] teaches wherein the maximum capacity of a phase line is determined, interpreted as a “max phase.” Paragraph [0056] teaches wherein it is determined if phase line is operating below a capacity, as the value of the current is compared with a threshold);
cause the first charger to operate at the charger capacity according to the setting in response to determining that the phase line is configured to operate below the phase line capacity while the first charger coupled with the phase line operates at the charger capacity (figure 5 and paragraphs [0056]-[0059] discloses wherein the first charge is configured to operate at charger capacity, by adjusting or decreasing the charging rate after the value of the current is determined to below a threshold. Paragraph [0059] discloses causing the first charger to operate at the charger capacity, is interpreted as adjusting the charging rate that the EV is consuming, upon determining a value of the charging current. This process allows the system to balance the load in response to determining the maximum capacity of the phase line).
PNG
media_image1.png
613
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jeffries figure 1A shows a three phase system providing load balancing to a plurality of EV chargers
Regarding claim 2, Jeffries teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to: detect activation of the first charger by a user of an electric vehicle (paragraphs [0033] and [0040] discloses wherein activation is detected by communication using a control pilot signal to determine activation or connection of the charger to the vehicle); and
cause, in response to the detection, the first charger to conduct power via a cable attached to the electric vehicle according to an offset corresponding to the charger capacity (paragraph [0051] discloses wherein the charging current is delivered to the EV after the communication determines an offset or charging rate corresponding to charger capacity determined in paragraphs [0049] – [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Jeffries teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first charger and the second charger are coupled with a ground line and with a second phase line of the electrical panel to conduct power at a second phase different than the first phase, the system comprising the one or more processors to: cause the second charger to operate at a second charger capacity of the second charger according to the setting and in response to determining that the second phase line is configured to operate below a second phase line capacity of the second phase line while the second charger coupled with the second phase line operates at the second charger capacity (figures 1, 1A, paragraphs [0041] and [0044] discloses wherein the charger includes power conductors L1, L2 and ground conductor G which are coupled to the electrical panel. Figure 1A shows a second charger, in a plurality of chargers, which operate at a second charger capacity determined a max phase in paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 4, Jeffries teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to: cause the first charger and the second charger to operate at a substantially equal amount of power, the first charger and the second charger comprised by a plurality of chargers coupled with the phase line and comprising a sum of power capacities of the plurality of chargers exceeding the phase line capacity (shown in figure 1A wherein the first and second charger operate at a substantially equal amount of power amongst a sum of a plurality of charger. Paragraph [0059] discloses wherein the load is balanced so as to provide substantially equal amounts of power).
Regarding claim 5, Jeffries teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to: detect the second charger activated subsequent to activation of the first charger (paragraphs [0033] and [0040] discloses wherein activation is detected by communication using a control pilot signal to determine activation or connection of the charger to the vehicle); and
cause the second charger to operate, in accordance with the setting and in accordance with the phase line capacity, at a second amount of power, the second amount of power less than an amount of power at which the first charger operates at the charger capacity (paragraph [0051] discloses wherein the charging current is delivered to the EV after the communication determines an offset or charging rate corresponding to charger capacity determined in paragraphs [0049] – [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Jeffries teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to: detect the second charger activated subsequent to activation of the first charger (paragraphs [0033] and [0040] discloses wherein activation is detected by communication using a control pilot signal to determine activation or connection of the charger to the vehicle); and
cause the first charger and the second charger to operate at a substantially equal amount of power in accordance with the setting and in accordance with the phase line capacity (paragraph [0051] discloses wherein the charging current is delivered to the EV after the communication determines an offset or charging rate corresponding to charger capacity determined in paragraphs [0049] – [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Jeffries teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to: identify the setting for a third charger and for a fourth charger, the third charger and the fourth charger coupled with a third phase line of the electrical panel to conduct power at a third phase (Figure 1A shows third and fourth chargers 108, coupled to electrical panels figure 1 and 1A paragraph [0033] discloses a processor receiving a signal “S” identifying a charger phase of a three-phase power source);
determine that the third phase line is configured to operate below a third phase line capacity of the third phase line while the third charger coupled with the third phase line operates at a third charger capacity of the third charger (Paragraphs [0048]-[0049] teaches wherein the settings of the charger or EVSE is determined, which represents the phase line capacity or available current of the phase line. Paragraph [0055] teaches wherein the maximum capacity of a phase line is determined, interpreted as a “max phase.” Paragraph [0056] teaches wherein it is determined if phase line is operating below a capacity, as the value of the current is compared with a threshold);
and cause the third charger to operate at the third charger capacity according to the setting in response to determining that the third phase line is configured to operate below the third phase line capacity while the third charger coupled with the third phase line operates at the third charger capacity (figure 5 and paragraphs [0056]-[0059] discloses wherein the first charge is configured to operate at charger capacity, by adjusting or decreasing the charging rate after the value of the current is determined to below a threshold. Paragraph [0059] discloses causing the first charger to operate at the charger capacity, is interpreted as adjusting the charging rate that the EV is consuming, upon determining a value of the charging current. This process allows the system to balance the load in response to determining the maximum capacity of the phase line).
Regarding claim 8, Jeffries teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to: cause power to be delivered to a subset of a plurality of chargers coupled with the phase line in accordance with an individual capacity of each charger of the subset of the plurality of chargers, the subset comprising the first charger and the second charger, wherein a sum of the individual capacities of the subset does not exceed the phase line capacity and a sum of individual capacities of the plurality of chargers exceeds the phase line capacity (Figure 1A shows a plurality chargers 108, coupled to electrical panels figure 1 and 1A paragraph [0033] discloses a processor receiving a signal “S” identifying a charger phase of a three-phase power source. Paragraph [0059] discloses wherein the load is balanced so as to provide substantially equal amounts of power).
Regarding claim 9, Jeffries teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to: identify a subset of the plurality of chargers, the subset comprising the first charger and the second charger, each charger of the subset having an individual power capacity and exchanging power with an electric vehicle, wherein a sum of the individual power capacities of the subset exceeds the phase line capacity; and cause power to be delivered equally to each charger of the subset in accordance with the setting and in accordance with an offset from the phase line capacity (Figure 1A shows a plurality of chargers 108, coupled to electrical panels figure 1 and 1A paragraph [0033] discloses a processor receiving a signal “S” identifying a charger phase of a three-phase power source. Paragraph [0059] discloses wherein the load is balanced so as to provide substantially equal amounts of power).
Regarding claim 10, Jeffries teaches the method (shown in figure 2),
comprising: identifying, by one or more processors (figure 1 item 102 a processor; figure 1A processor 122) coupled with memory (figure 1 item 104 a memory; figure 1A memory item 124), a setting for a first charger and for a second charger, the first charger and the second charger coupled with a phase line of an electrical panel to conduct power at a first phase (Figure 1 shows chargers item 110 (with cordset 108) coupled with a phase line, L1 and L2 of an electrical panel (three phase power IA, IB, and IC). Figure 1A shows first and second chargers 108, coupled to electrical panels figure 1 and 1A paragraph [0033] discloses a processor receiving a signal “S” identifying a charger phase of a three-phase power source);
determining, by the one or more processors, that the phase line is configured to operate below a phase line capacity of the phase line while the first charger coupled with the phase line operates at a charger capacity of the first charger (Paragraphs [0048]-[0049] teaches wherein the settings of the charger or EVSE is determined, which represents the phase line capacity or available current of the phase line. Paragraph [0055] teaches wherein the maximum capacity of a phase line is determined, interpreted as a “max phase.” Paragraph [0056] teaches wherein it is determined if phase line is operating below a capacity, as the value of the current is compared with a threshold); and
causing, by the one or more processors, the first charger to operate at the charger capacity according to the setting in response to determining that the phase line is configured to operate below the phase line capacity while the first charger coupled with the phase line operates at the charger capacity (figure 5 and paragraph [0056] discloses wherein the first charge is configured to operate at charger capacity, after the value of the current is determined to below a threshold. Paragraph [0059] discloses causing the first charger to operate at the charger capacity, is interpreted as adjusting the charging rate that the EV is consuming, upon determining a value of the charging current. Thus, the system is balancing the load in response to determining the maximum capacity of the phase line).
Regarding claim 11, Jeffries teaches the method of claim 10, comprising: detecting, by the one or more processors, activation of the first charger by a user of an electric vehicle (paragraphs [0033] and [0040] discloses wherein activation is detected by communication using a control pilot signal to determine activation or connection of the charger to the vehicle); and
causing, by the one or more processors in response to the detection, the first charger to conduct power via a cable attached to the electric vehicle according to an offset corresponding to the charger capacity (paragraph [0051] discloses wherein the charging current is delivered to the EV after the communication determines an offset or charging rate corresponding to charger capacity determined in paragraphs [0049] – [0050]).
Regarding claim 12, Jeffries teaches the method of claim 10, comprising: causing, by the one or more processors, the second charger to operate at a second charger capacity of the second charger according to the setting and in response to determining that the second phase line is configured to operate below a second phase line capacity of the second phase line while the second charger coupled with the second phase line operates at the second charger capacity (figures 1, 1A, paragraphs [0041] and [0044] discloses wherein the charger includes power conductors L1, L2 and ground conductor G which are coupled to the electrical panel. Figure 1A shows a second charger, in a plurality of chargers, which operate at a second charger capacity determined a max phase in paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 13, Jeffries teaches the method of claim 10, comprising: causing, by the one or more processors, the first charger and the second charger to operate at a substantially equal amount of power, the first charger and the second charger comprised by a plurality of chargers coupled with the phase line and comprising a sum of power capacities of the plurality of chargers exceeding the phase line capacity (shown in figure 1A wherein the first and second charger operate at a substantially equal amount of power amongst a sum of a plurality of charger. Paragraph [0059] discloses wherein the load is balanced so as to provide substantially equal amounts of power).
Regarding claim 14, Jeffries teaches the method of claim 10, comprising: detecting, by the one or more processors, the second charger activated subsequent to activation of the first charger (paragraphs [0033] and [0040] discloses wherein activation is detected by communication using a control pilot signal to determine activation or connection of the charger to the vehicle); and
causing, by the one or more processors, the second charger to operate, in accordance with the setting and in accordance with the line capacity, at a second amount of power, the second amount of power less than an amount of power at which the first charger operates at the charger capacity (paragraph [0051] discloses wherein the charging current is delivered to the EV after the communication determines an offset or charging rate corresponding to charger capacity determined in paragraphs [0049] – [0050]).
Regarding claim 15, Jeffries teaches the method of claim 10, comprising: detecting, by the one or more processors, the second charger activated subsequent to activation of the first charger (paragraphs [0033] and [0040] discloses wherein activation is detected by communication using a control pilot signal to determine activation or connection of the charger to the vehicle); and
causing, by the one or more processors, the first charger and the second charger to operate at a substantially equal amount of power in accordance with the setting and in accordance with the phase line capacity (paragraph [0051] discloses wherein the charging current is delivered to the EV after the communication determines an offset or charging rate corresponding to charger capacity determined in paragraphs [0049] – [0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Jeffries teaches the method of claim 10, comprising: identifying, by the one or more processors, the setting for a third charger and for a fourth charger, the third charger and the fourth charger coupled with a third phase line of the electrical panel to conduct power at a third phase (Figure 1A shows third and fourth chargers 108, coupled to electrical panels figure 1 and 1A paragraph [0033] discloses a processor receiving a signal “S” identifying a charger phase of a three-phase power source);
determining, by the one or more processors, that the third phase line is configured to operate below a third phase line capacity of the third phase line while the third charger coupled with the third phase line operates at a third charger capacity of the third charger (Paragraphs [0048]-[0049] teaches wherein the settings of the charger or EVSE is determined, which represents the phase line capacity or available current of the phase line. Paragraph [0055] teaches wherein the maximum capacity of a phase line is determined, interpreted as a “max phase.” Paragraph [0056] teaches wherein it is determined if phase line is operating below a capacity, as the value of the current is compared with a threshold); and
causing, by the one or more processors, the third charger to operate at the third charger capacity according to the setting in response to determining that the third phase line is configured to operate below the third phase line capacity while the third charger coupled with the third phase line operates at the third charger capacity (figure 5 and paragraphs [0056]-[0059] discloses wherein the first charge is configured to operate at charger capacity, by adjusting or decreasing the charging rate after the value of the current is determined to below a threshold. Paragraph [0059] discloses causing the first charger to operate at the charger capacity, is interpreted as adjusting the charging rate that the EV is consuming, upon determining a value of the charging current. This process allows the system to balance the load in response to determining the maximum capacity of the phase line).
Regarding claim 17, Jeffries teaches the method of claim 10, comprising: causing, by the one or more processors, power to be delivered to a subset of a plurality of chargers coupled with the phase line in accordance with an individual capacity of each charger of the subset of the plurality of chargers, the subset comprising the first charger and the second charger, wherein a sum of the individual capacities of the subset does not exceed the phase line capacity and a sum of individual capacities of the plurality of chargers exceeds the phase line capacity (Figure 1A shows a plurality chargers 108, coupled to electrical panels figure 1 and 1A paragraph [0033] discloses a processor receiving a signal “S” identifying a charger phase of a three-phase power source. Paragraph [0059] discloses wherein the load is balanced so as to provide substantially equal amounts of power).
Regarding claim 18, Jeffries teaches the method of claim 10, comprising: identifying, by the one or more processors, a subset of the plurality of chargers, the subset comprising the first charger and the second charger, each charger of the subset having an individual power capacity and exchanging power with an electric vehicle, wherein a sum of the individual power capacities of the subset exceeds the phase line capacity; and causing, by the one or more processors, power to be delivered equally to each charger of the subset in accordance with the setting and in accordance with an offset from the phase line capacity (Figure 1A shows a plurality of chargers 108, coupled to electrical panels figure 1 and 1A paragraph [0033] discloses a processor receiving a signal “S” identifying a charger phase of a three-phase power source. Paragraph [0059] discloses wherein the load is balanced so as to provide substantially equal amounts of power).
Regarding claim 19, Jeffries teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media having processor readable instructions, such that, when executed (figure 2),
cause a processor to: identify a setting for a first charger and for a second charger, the first charger and the second charger coupled with a phase line of an electrical panel to conduct power at a first phase (Figure 1 shows chargers item 110 (with cordset 108) coupled with a phase line, L1 and L2 of an electrical panel (three phase power IA, IB, and IC). Figure 1A shows first and second chargers 108, coupled to electrical panels figure 1 and 1A paragraph [0033] discloses a processor receiving a signal “S” identifying a charger phase of a three-phase power source);
determine that the phase line is configured to operate below a phase line capacity of the phase line while the first charger coupled with the phase line operates at a charger capacity of the first charger (Paragraphs [0048]-[0049] teaches wherein the settings of the charger or EVSE is determined, which represents the phase line capacity or available current of the phase line. Paragraph [0055] teaches wherein the maximum capacity of a phase line is determined, interpreted as a “max phase.” Paragraph [0056] teaches wherein it is determined if phase line is operating below a capacity, as the value of the current is compared with a threshold);
cause the first charger to operate at the charger capacity according to the setting in response to determining that the phase line is configured to operate below the phase line capacity while the first charger coupled with the phase line operates at the charger capacity (figure 5 and paragraph [0056] discloses wherein the first charge is configured to operate at charger capacity, after the value of the current is determined to below a threshold. Paragraph [0059] discloses causing the first charger to operate at the charger capacity, is interpreted as adjusting the charging rate that the EV is consuming, upon determining a value of the charging current. Thus, the system is balancing the load in response to determining the maximum capacity of the phase line).
Regarding claim 20, Jeffries teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the processor is configured to: detect activation of the first charger by a user of an electric vehicle (paragraphs [0033] and [0040] discloses wherein activation is detected by communication using a control pilot signal to determine activation or connection of the charger to the vehicle); and
cause, in response to the detection, the first charger to conduct power via a cable attached to the electric vehicle according to an offset corresponding to the charger capacity (paragraph [0051] discloses wherein the charging current is delivered to the EV after the communication determines an offset or charging rate corresponding to charger capacity determined in paragraphs [0049] – [0050]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Us 20130112519 A1 Transferring Energy Anders; Dominik
Us 20220216728 A1 Multilayer Control For Managing Power Ashman; Cole Et Al.
Us 20200122585 A1 Reconfigurable Micro-Grid Bhat; Krishna Prasad Et Al.
Us 20180157231 A1 Apparatus For Utilities Management Bogdan; Pamela A. M. Et Al.
Us 20190359077 A1 Charging With Multiple Charging Points Beez; Steve Et Al.
Us 11890960 B1 Electrical Load Management Bhati; Jaivardhan S. Et Al.
Us 20220258637 A1 Aggregating Capacity For Depot Charging Chow; Bryan M.
Us 20090115357 A1 Detection Of Maximum Stator Currents Engel; Markus
Us 20160137087 A1 Evse-Based Energy Automation Haas; Harry Price Et Al.
Us 20190052171 A1 Power Supply Device Kitamoto; Ryota
Us 20220360194 A1 A Multilevel Converter Kuder; Manuel
Us 20090160247 A1 Power Supply Device For Vehicle Nakamura; Makoto Et Al.
Us 20120055751 A1 Inductively Receiving Electric Energy Vollenwyder; Kurt Et Al.
Us 20120326498 A1 Providing A Plurality Of Vehicles Woronowicz; Konrad Et Al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS B PACHECO whose telephone number is (571)272-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:30.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
ALEXIS BOATENG PACHECO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/ALEXIS B PACHECO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859