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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Response dated 1/27/2026. Claims 1-4, 9, 11-12, and 14 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see page 8 of 11, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection of claim 14 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 101 rejection of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, page 10 of 11, filed 1/27/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has alleged that neither Ferguson nor Shimizu disclose or teach the amended limitations of claim 1 as incorporated herein, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the Applicant has alleged that Shimizu does not teach “…generating the charging and discharging completion information…” to which the Examiner agues that Shimizu teaches the determination of a vehicle’s battery state of charge as well as the monitoring of an amount of energy a vehicle’s battery discharges to a grid, both of which apply to the cited limitation.
Additionally the Applicant has alleged that Shimizu does not teach “…determining the target dispatch mode based on the charging and discharging completion information…” to which the Examiner notes primary reference Ferguson discloses this information (see Ferguson at least [0044] and [0069]), again detailed below.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation of claim 1 and claim 9 which states "...the battery is allowed to discharge to the grid and the grid is allowed to charge the battery..." will be interpreted as either of the two actions capable of occurring, but not occurring simultaneously.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 9, 12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 as currently presented states “An electric energy dispatch method…the method…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “An electric energy dispatch method…the electric energy dispatch method…” for the sake of consistency.
Claim 1 (and analogous claim 9) as currently presented states “…at which the charging or discharging of the battery…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…at which a charging or discharging of the battery…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 1 (and analogous claim 9) as currently presented states “…determine that the current dispatch mode is a target dispatch mode according…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…determine that a current dispatch mode is a target dispatch mode according…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 1 (and analogous claim 9) as currently presented states “…a target identifier in the charging and charging completion…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a target identifier in the charging and discharging completion…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 1 (and analogous claim 9) as currently presented states “...receiving the charging and discharging completion information sent by the battery management system (BMS) during the electric energy dispatch process…” but does not detail what or where “the charging and discharging information” is received by after having been sent by the BMS. Earlier in the same claim(s), a limitation states that the BMS sends “the charging and discharging information” to the VCU, which the Examiner will interpret similarly, and that the limitation in question is simply elaborating on “the charging and discharging information” already sent.
Claim 1 (and analogous claim 9) as currently presented states “…an electric energy dispatch process…the electric energy dispatch process…the dispatch process…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…an electric energy dispatch process…the electric energy dispatch process…the electric energy dispatch process…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claims 2-3 are objected for similar reasons.
Claim 1 (and analogous claim 9) as currently presented states “…a target dispatch mode…a target dispatch mode…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a target dispatch mode…[ [ a ] ] the target dispatch mode…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 2 is objected for similar reasons.
Claim 1 (and analogous claim 9) as currently presented states “…accept the electric energy dispatch of the grid dispatch platform…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…accept an electric energy dispatch of the grid dispatch platform…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 3 as currently presented states “…a target identifier…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…[ [ a ] ] the target identifier…”, since claim 3 is dependent upon claim 1, and claim 1 already discloses “…a target identifier…,” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 4 as currently presented states “…the allowing the BMS to accept the electric energy…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…the allowing the BMS to continue to accept the electric energy…” so as to align with the similar phrase presented in claim 1, and to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 9 as currently presented states “…the vehicle…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a vehicle…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 9 as currently presented states “…the dispatch mode information…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a dispatch mode information…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claims 12 and 14 as currently presented states “…an electric energy dispatch method…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…[ [ an ] ] the electric energy dispatch method…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 14 as currently presented states “A non-transitory computer storage medium…the computer storage medium…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “A non-transitory computer storage medium…the non-transitory computer storage medium…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al. (US-2021/0291687; hereinafter Ferguson; already of record) in view of Shimizu et al. (US-2017/0259683; hereinafter Shimizu; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ferguson discloses an electric energy dispatch method applied to a vehicle control unit (VCU) of a vehicle (see Ferguson at least Abs), the method comprising:
controlling a battery management system (BMS) of the vehicle to acquire a first electrical performance parameter of a battery during an electric energy dispatch process of a grid dispatch platform that is performed between a grid and the battery by means of a charging and discharging apparatus (see Ferguson at least Fig 1-3, [0028] "The battery controller 160 controls the charging and operation of the battery 150. The battery controller 160 may interface with battery sensors for determining a current charge level of the battery 150. The battery controller 160 may interface with the charging station 130 to initiate charging, request charge at a selected charging rate, and end a charging session..." and [0042]-[0044] "...As another example, the battery analyzer 310 may be implemented by the EV 110... The battery analyzer 310 may determine an available dispatch time for the EV based on the current charge level of the battery 150, a first charging rate provided by the charging station 130, and a target charge level. The current charge level of the battery 150 is received from the EV 110...");
controlling the BMS to determine that the first electrical performance parameter meets a preset charging and discharging cut-off condition at which the charging or discharging of the battery is preset to be cut-off (see Ferguson at least Fig 1-5, [0045] "The battery analyzer 310, in conjunction with the dispatch predictor 340, determines a target charge level for the battery 150 to reach during charging. In an embodiment, the target charge level is a full charge..." [0071] "...The charging rate curve 585 shows that the charging station 130 charges the EV 110 at a relatively slow rate for a period, and then charges the EV 110 at a faster rate, before disengaging from the EV 110, e.g., after the EV 110 reaches a full charge...");
…
controlling the BMS to determine that the current dispatch mode is a target dispatch mode according to an interactive message between the BMS and the charging and discharging apparatus (see Ferguson at least [0028] "...The battery controller 160 may interface with the charging station 130 to initiate charging, request charge at a selected charging rate, and end a charging session..." [0043] "...For example, the data describing charge events includes charge levels, changes in the charge level, and charging rate supplied by a power source (e.g., a charging station 130, regenerative braking, or other sources)... The battery analyzer 310 can predict the response of the battery 150 to planned charge and discharge events based on the historical battery data for the battery 150 and/or battery data for multiple batteries across the fleet of EVs 110." [0069] "Based on the demand projection 545 and the charging queue 550, the charging manager 240 (e.g., the dispatch predictor 340) determines a dispatch likelihood 555 as a function of time. In this example, the dispatch likelihood 555 is a likelihood that the EV 110 is dispatched from the charging station 130 to meet service demands and/or to free the charging station 130 for another EV in the queue...");
…the current dispatch mode is not the target dispatch mode (see Ferguson at least [0069] "…An example dispatch likelihood curve 560 shows that initially, the dispatch likelihood is zero (e.g., because the battery 150 needs to be charged and/or one or more EVs are queued for charging ahead of the EV 110); after a period of time, there is a low spike in dispatch likelihood, followed by another period of zero, and then a larger spike in dispatch likelihood...");
receiving the charging and discharging completion information … during the electric energy dispatch process (see Ferguson at least Fig 1-3, [0028] "The battery controller 160 controls the charging and operation of the battery 150. The battery controller 160 may interface with battery sensors for determining a current charge level of the battery 150. The battery controller 160 may interface with the charging station 130 to initiate charging, request charge at a selected charging rate, and end a charging session..." and [0042]-[0044] "...As another example, the battery analyzer 310 may be implemented by the EV 110... The battery analyzer 310 may determine an available dispatch time for the EV based on the current charge level of the battery 150, a first charging rate provided by the charging station 130, and a target charge level. The current charge level of the battery 150 is received from the EV 110..."), the charging and discharging completion information including information indicating that the battery is fully charged or discharged (see Ferguson at least [0045] "The battery analyzer 310, in conjunction with the dispatch predictor 340, determines a target charge level for the battery 150 to reach during charging. In an embodiment, the target charge level is a full charge..." [0048] "...The battery analyzer may calculate the degradation costs for a particular battery 150 based on the age of the battery, current state of the battery (e.g., full charge level that the battery can currently receive vs. full charge level when new; current time to reach full charge from empty vs. time to reach full charge when new), environmental conditions, or other factors in combination with historical battery data." [0071] "...The charging rate curve 585 shows that the charging station 130 charges the EV 110 at a relatively slow rate for a period, and then charges the EV 110 at a faster rate, before disengaging from the EV 110, e.g., after the EV 110 reaches a full charge...");
determining whether a dispatch mode of the dispatch process is a target dispatch mode according to the charging and discharging completion information (see Ferguson at least [0044] "The battery analyzer 310 may determine an available dispatch time for the EV based on the current charge level of the battery 150, a first charging rate provided by the charging station 130, and a target charge level..." and [0069] "…An example dispatch likelihood curve 560 shows that initially, the dispatch likelihood is zero (e.g., because the battery 150 needs to be charged and/or one or more EVs are queued for charging ahead of the EV 110); after a period of time, there is a low spike in dispatch likelihood, followed by another period of zero, and then a larger spike in dispatch likelihood...") …
…
However, while Ferguson teaches a communication between an electric vehicle, a charging station, and a fleet system, as well as implementing variable charging rates for a vehicle, it is not explicit that Ferguson explicitly discloses the following:
…controlling the BMS to generate charging and discharging completion information and send the charging and discharging completion information to the VCU…
…controlling the BMS to add a target identifier in the charging and charging completion information…
…information sent by the battery management system (BMS)…
…the target dispatch mode being a two-way electric energy dispatch mode between the grid and the battery at which the battery is allowed to discharge to the grid and the grid is allowed to charge the battery…
…automatically allowing the BMS to continue to accept the electric energy dispatch of the grid dispatch platform after the battery has completed the charging or discharging when the dispatch mode is the target dispatch mode…
Shimizu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…controlling the BMS to generate charging and discharging completion information and send the charging and discharging completion information to the VCU (see Shimizu at least [0037] "In some implementations, the charging system 191 may include a computer system that is configured to send and receive communications with the network 105." [0123] "...For example, the battery system 251 includes code and routines for determining a state of charge for a battery in the PEV 123... The battery system 251 is communicatively coupled to the bus 220 via signal line 250." And [0223] "At block 1026, the optimization system 199 may monitor the amount of power discharged by the battery system 251 to the power grid 114...")…
…controlling the BMS to add a target identifier in the charging and charging completion information (see Shimizu at least [0123] "...In yet another example, a state of charge indicates a battery is 30% charged...")…
…information sent by the battery management system (BMS) (see Shimizu at least [0037] "In some implementations, the charging system 191 may include a computer system that is configured to send and receive communications with the network 105.")…
…the target dispatch mode being a two-way electric energy dispatch mode between the grid and the battery at which the battery is allowed to discharge to the grid and the grid is allowed to charge the battery (see Shimizu at least [0121] "The battery system 251 may be coupled to one or more of the power grid 114, the first power coupling 116 and the second power coupling 118. This coupling may be operable to enable the battery system 251 to charge the rechargeable batteries with electricity generated by the REPG facility 170 and the non-renewable energy power generation facility 112. This coupling may also be operable to enable the battery system 251 to discharge electricity stored in the rechargeable batteries to the power grid 114.")…
…automatically allowing the BMS to continue to accept the electric energy dispatch of the grid dispatch platform after the battery has completed the charging or discharging when the dispatch mode is the target dispatch mode (see Shimizu at least Fig 10-11, [0175] "...A charging completion time can be a time when a PEV 123 completes charging. In some examples, a charging completion time can be a time before the estimated departure time. In some other examples, a charging completion time can be the same as the estimated departure time." [0186], and [0228]-[0231] "In the depicted implementation, an REOC event 1105 occurs and during the same time period the optimization system 199 causes the battery system 251 of the PEV 123 to be charged with renewable energy generated by the REPG facility 170... In the depicted implementation, a DR event occurs 1120 and during the same time period the optimization system 199 causes the battery system 251 of the PEV 123 to discharge energy stored in the battery system 251. In the depicted implementation, the charge schedule 193 indicates that the TOU rate is cheaper 1110 and during the same time period the optimization system 199 causes the charging system 191 to charge the battery system 251 of the PEV 123.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric energy dispatch method as disclosed by Ferguson with combined charging and discharging capability such as taught by Shimizu with a reasonable expectation of success so as to assist with power requirements while additionally benefiting from monetary incentives provided (see Shimizu at least [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Ferguson in view of Shimizu teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the charging and discharging completion information comprises dispatch mode information, and the determining of whether a dispatch mode of the dispatch process is a target dispatch mode according to the charging and discharging completion information comprises:
determining whether a dispatch mode characterized by the dispatch mode information is a target dispatch mode (see Ferguson at least [0044] “The battery analyzer 310 may determine an available dispatch time for the EV based on the current charge level of the battery 150, a first charging rate provided by the charging station 130, and a target charge level...” [0069] “Based on the demand projection 545 and the charging queue 550, the charging manager 240 (e.g., the dispatch predictor 340) determines a dispatch likelihood 555 as a function of time. In this example, the dispatch likelihood 555 is a likelihood that the EV 110 is dispatched from the charging station 130 to meet service demands and/or to free the charging station 130 for another EV in the queue. The dispatch likelihood 555 may be used to determine the anticipated dispatch time, described above. An example dispatch likelihood curve 560 shows that initially, the dispatch likelihood is zero (e.g., because the battery 150 needs to be charged and/or one or more EVs are queued for charging ahead of the EV 110); after a period of time, there is a low spike in dispatch likelihood, followed by another period of zero, and then a larger spike in dispatch likelihood. For example, the spikes in the dispatch likelihood curve 560 may correlate with demand levels for a ride service that experiences demand in the evening (the first spike) and in the morning (the second spike).”).
Regarding claim 3, Ferguson in view of Shimizu teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining of whether a dispatch mode of the dispatch process is a target dispatch mode according to the charging and discharging completion information comprises:
determining whether the charging and discharging completion information (see Shimizu at least [0121]) comprises a target identifier, wherein the target identifier is added to the charging and discharging completion information by the BMS when determining that the dispatch mode is a dispatch mode other than the target dispatch mode (see Ferguson at least [0022] "...Based on the anticipated dispatch time and a time to charge the EV at a fast charging rate (e.g., the fastest rate provided by the charging station 130), either the fast charging rate or a different, slower charging rate is selected. The charging station 130 charges the battery 150 according to the selected charging rate."), and the target identifier is a full charge identifier or a full discharge identifier (see Ferguson at least [0045] “The battery analyzer 310, in conjunction with the dispatch predictor 340, determines a target charge level for the battery 150 to reach during charging. In an embodiment, the target charge level is a full charge. In another embodiment, the target charge level is a charge level that is sufficient to carry out a predicted usage of the EV 110 after the EV 110 is charged, e.g., a charge that allows the EV 110 to travel a certain number of miles, or a certain period of time. The target charge level may include a buffer, e.g., in case the EV 110 is rerouted or experiences unexpected power draws. The predicted usage of the EV 110 is determined by the dispatch predictor 340, described below.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electric energy dispatch method as disclosed by Ferguson with combined charging and discharging capability such as further taught by Shimizu with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Ferguson in view of Shimizu teach the method according to claim 1, wherein
the allowing the BMS to accept the electric energy dispatch of the grid dispatch platform when the dispatch mode is the target dispatch mode specifically comprises:
not sending a charging and discharging end instruction to the BMS when the dispatch mode is the target dispatch mode (see Shimizu at least Fig 11 and [0228]-[0231] "In the depicted implementation, an REOC event 1105 occurs and during the same time period the optimization system 199 causes the battery system 251 of the PEV 123 to be charged with renewable energy generated by the REPG facility 170... In the depicted implementation, a DR event occurs 1120 and during the same time period the optimization system 199 causes the battery system 251 of the PEV 123 to discharge energy stored in the battery system 251. In the depicted implementation, the charge schedule 193 indicates that the TOU rate is cheaper 1110 and during the same time period the optimization system 199 causes the charging system 191 to charge the battery system 251 of the PEV 123." – Figure 11 and associated text depict the fluctuations of charging and discharging a vehicle between a maximum and minimum, the primary focus being to ensure a full charge upon a departure time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric energy dispatch as disclosed by Ferguson with continual charging and discharging until a predetermined time such as further taught by Shimizu with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Ferguson in view of Shimizu teach the analogous material of that in claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, both Ferguson and Shimizu disclose and teach circuitry configured to perform functions recited herein (see Ferguson at least [0094]) and (see Shimizu at least [0122]).
Regarding claim 11, Ferguson in view of Shimizu teach the analogous material of that in claim 1 and claim 9 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Ferguson in view of Shimizu teach an electric energy dispatch device (see Ferguson at least [0010]), comprising: a processor, and a memory in which computer program instructions are stored (see Ferguson at least [0014]), wherein
the processor reads and executes the computer program instructions to implement an electric energy dispatch method of claim 1 (see Ferguson at least [0014]).
Regarding claim 14, Ferguson in view of Shimizu teach a non-transitory computer storage medium, wherein computer program instructions are stored in the computer storage medium, and the computer program instructions, when executed by a processor, implement an electric energy dispatch method of claim 1 (see Ferguson at least [0014]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tiedtke et al. (US-2020/0177008) teaches a power system which directs grid power to battery power, also indicating an error message when applicable.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights