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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hishida et al. (2020/0231058) and Jain et al. (2021/0309121).
Regarding independent claims 1, 19, and 20, and dependent claims 10, 11, Hishida teaches (Fig. 1) a system and method configured to control charging of multiple movable batteries (32), and power supply from the multiple movable batteries to outsides (10 via 20)([0032]), comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0096]) having stored thereon a program, wherein
the program causes a computer for controlling charging of multiple movable batteries, and power supply from the multiple movable batteries to outsides to function as:
a controlling unit (40) for providing an electrical power network with an electrical power resource by performing,
at least one of a first control for reducing power charging amounts for the multiple movable batteries, or a second control for increasing power supplying amounts from the multiple movable batteries to outsides, in response to a first request for requesting power consumption to be reduced ([0038]; the second control), and
at least one of a third control for increasing power charging amounts for the multiple movable batteries, or a fourth control for reducing power supplying amounts from the multiple movable batteries to outsides, in response to a second request for requesting power consumption to be increased ([0038]; the third control); and
an allocating unit (inside 40) for allocating, based on an amount of electrical power resources available to be provided to the electrical power network by each of the multiple movable batteries, and an amount of electrical power resources required to be provided to the electrical power network, by which of the first control, the second control, the third control, or the fourth control, the each of the multiple movable batteries provides the electrical power network with an electrical power resource in each of multiple fixed periods in a future ([0036] to [0040]; i.e. multiple 30 minute time segments in the future based on history and predicted values), wherein
if consumption power increases in the multiple fixed periods ([0040]; i.e. when excess power is determined to occur in a power network, 10b), the controlling unit is configured to select, among the multiple movable batteries not allocated by the allocating unit, a movable battery that can provide electrical power for serving the increased consumption power (battery inside vehicle 30a), and provides electrical power for serving the increased consumption power (vehicle 30a hadn’t already been allocated to perform another function during that fixed period, so it was selected to provide electrical power for serving the increased consumption power at network 10b in [0040]),
the multiple movable batteries include batteries mounted on vehicles (30; Fig. 1) and exchangeable (meaning power can be transferred) at multiple stations (20), and
the allocating unit is configured to allocate, based on a history of exchanging the batteries in the multiple stations (i.e. the current SOC of each battery; and comparing it to what is desired based on the future allocation), by which of the first control, the second control, the third control, or the fourth control of the battery for the vehicle provides electrical power for the electrical power network ([0037]-[0040]), and
the allocating unit is configured to allocate, so as to bring changes in electrical charging power or discharging power of the multiple movable batteries to be equal to or less than predefined values ([0056]; i.e. maximum rate of charge/discharge), by which of the first control, the second control, the third control, or the fourth control, the each of the multiple movable batteries provides the electrical power network with an electrical power resource in each of multiple timeframes in a future (this limitation is broad and “predefined values” could be interpreted to mean the desired charge level remaining in a battery after a control is performed; in the original rejection, the Examiner looked at “changes” to mean rate of change and that “to be equal to or less than predefined values” to mean be equal to or less than a maximum rate of change (i.e. charge/discharge)).
Hishida fails to explicitly teach the vehicle battery being exchanged for a battery charged at a station. Jain teaches a similar system (Fig. 1) to that of Hishida. Jain teaches a vehicle (106) comprising a battery (116), and a charging station (108) comprising a charged battery (118). Jain teaches the battery used for travel of the vehicle (116) is exchanged for a battery charged at one of the stations (118), which is then installed on the vehicle (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the charging stations in Hishida’s invention having charged batteries capable of exchanging with batteries in the vehicles, to give the vehicle owner an option to exchange their battery for a new one and not have to wait for their vehicle’s battery to be charged before driving again. (Note: the “exchanging history information” brought from Jain’s invention into Hishida’s invention would still be used by the allocating unit in Hishida’s invention since it also has an obvious, if not inherent, impact on the current SOC of each battery)
Regarding claims 2, Hishida teaches an estimating unit (inside 40) for estimating, based on predicted usage situations of the multiple movable batteries (i.e. where will the vehicle and battery be and if charge/discharge will be necessary based on predicted demand at the location), an amount of electrical power resources that can be provided to the electrical power network by the each of the multiple movable batteries by using each of the first control, the second control, the third control, and the fourth control in the each of multiple timeframes in the future. ([0039], [0040])
Regarding claims 3, Hishida teaches the estimating unit is configured to estimate, based on target values of consumption power to be consumed by the multiple movable batteries in every timeframe in a future ([0039], [0040]; based on estimated shortage/excess of power at each location), and predictions of charging/discharging amounts of the multiple movable batteries in a future ([0050]; predicts future supply/demand imbalance), an electrical power resource required to be provided to the electrical power network in the each of multiple timeframes in the future.
Regarding claims 4, Hishida teaches the allocating unit is configured to allocate an amount of electrical power resources to be provided to the electrical power network by the each of the multiple movable batteries by using any of the first control, the second control, the third control, and the fourth control in each of multiple timeframes in a future ([0037], [0059]; based on supply/demand imbalance).
Regarding claim 7, Hishida teaches the estimating unit is configured to allocate, based on an amount of electrical power resources available to be provided to the electrical power network by the each of the multiple movable batteries, and an amount of electrical power resources required to be provided to the electrical power network, by which of the first control, the second control, the third control, or the fourth control, the each of the multiple movable batteries provides the electrical power network with an electrical power resource in each of multiple timeframes within a period in which an electrical power resource contracted in an electricity market should be provided to the electrical power network ([0037]-[0039]); and
the controlling unit is configured to perform,
at least one of the first control or the second control, in response to the first request being received within the period in which the electrical power resource should be provided to the electrical power network and based on an amount of electrical power resources estimated by the estimating unit as being available to be provided to the electrical power network ([0037], [0038]), and
at least one of the third control or the fourth control, in response to the second request being received within the period in which the electrical power resource should be provided to the electrical power network and based on an amount of electrical power resources estimated by the estimating unit as being available to be provided to the electrical power network ([0037], [0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the amendment to the independent claims (i.e. adding the limitations of claims 6 and 15-17), the Examiner believes that these limitations are taught in Hishida as shown in the original rejection. Additional explanation was given above in the rejection of the independent claims to more explicitly understand the Examiner’s position and interpretation of these amended claim limitations.
Here is the explanation again here: this limitation is broad and “predefined values” could be interpreted to mean the desired charge level remaining in a battery after a control is performed; in the original rejection, the Examiner looked at “changes” to mean rate of change and that “to be equal to or less than predefined values” to mean be equal to or less than a maximum rate of change (i.e. charge/discharge).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
DMP
7/17/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights