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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/245,006 filed on 03/13/2023 in which claims 1-23 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of preliminary amendment filed on 03/13/2023 in which claims 11,16,20 and 22 are currently amended, claims 17,21 and 23 have been canceled while claims 1-10,12-15,18-19 remain as originally presented. By this amendment, claims 1-16,18-20 and 22 are now pending in the application for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and placed of record. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
Specification
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22 recites the underlined limitations of: “Charging pole (1) according to claim 14, haracterised in that the charging pole has an energy storage device,…”which should and would read for examination purpose -- Charging pole (1) according to claim 14, characterised in that the charging pole has an energy storage device,…. --.
Claim 11 is objected as being indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. Claim 11 recites the limitations of, “A process for generating and delivering electricity (100) from a charging pole (1) into a power grid according to claim 1 characterised in that the second control command and/or the control command generated from the second information terminates the energy conversion process”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this underlined limitations in the claim since a second control command must be first recited in parent claim 1.
It is suggested however to change the dependency of claim 11 from claim 1 to claim 8 to resolve the antecedent basis.
Furthermore, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors, such colon, comma and proper transitional words such as “wherein” instead of “characterised in that”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of “the charging pole (1)” and the limitations of “a process for generating and delivering electricity (100)” as recited in claims 11-13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "…the second control command and/or…" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3,7,13-16,19-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smolenaers US 2020/0062138 A1(also cited by Applicants).
Regarding claims 14 and 1: Smolenaers at least discloses and shows in Figs. 3-5: Charging pole (construed as being part of charging station 5) suitable and intended for charging batteries(3) of electric vehicles(1)(see Figs. 3-4 and 6), wherein the charging pole (construed as being part of charging station 5) -comprises a first connection(plug 81)(see Figs. 3-4 and [0103],[0105]) suitable and intended for delivering electrical energy to an electric vehicle(1), -comprises a second connection(see connection to grid 77 via AC/DC converter 83; see Fig. 3) suitable and intended for delivering electrical energy to a power grid(77) connected to the charging pole (construed as being part of charging station 5), characterised in that the charging pole (construed as being part of charging station 5)comprises communication means(communication module 122)(see Figs. 6-7 and [0105])(see [0026],[0090],[0092],[0094] [0134],[0138] and [0145]) suitable and intended for receiving a first control command(as onboard module 20 which is fitted to vehicle 1; see [0105],[0122],[0134],[0139],[0145] and [0191]) and/or a first information from which a control command is generated.
Claim 1 is a process claim which substantially runs in parallel with claim 14 and thus is also anticipated.
Regarding claim 15, Smolenaers discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 14. Smolenaers further discloses, characterised in that the charging pole(construed as being part of charging station 5) comprises a controller(120) suitable and intended for executing the first control command and/or the control command generated from the first information([0121]-[0132],[0138] and [0145]).
Regarding claims 3,16 and 13, Smolenaers discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 15. Smolenaers further discloses, characterised in that the control unit(120) controls a feed-in device(see cable and plug 81 and coupler 126 and/or 127)(Figs. 3-4 and 8), wherein the feeding device comprises a switching device(124,128,129 which are part or a subset of control unit 120)(see Fig. 8 and [0180]) suitable and intended for starting and/or terminating feeding operations([0084],[0097] and [0103])(as per claims 3 and 13).
Regarding claim 19, Smolenaers discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 14. Smolenaers further discloses, characterised in that the first connection (plug 81) is structurally different from the second connection (connection to the grid 77 as shown in Figs. 3-5)(see [0106]-[0108],[0115]-[0116]).
Regarding 20 and 2, Smolenaers discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 14. Smolenaers further discloses, characterised in that the charging pole has a device(83) for energy conversion, wherein the energy conversion device is suitable and intended for converting a gaseous and/or liquid energy carrier into electric energy(see [0073], [100], [[0101])(as per claim 2).
Regarding claim 7, Smolenaers discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Smolenaers further discloses, characterised in that the energy conversion(via AC/DC converter 83)(see Figs. 3-5) takes place in the charging station(5).
Regarding 22, Smolenaers discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 14. Smolenaers further discloses, characterized in that the charging pole has an energy storage device (80)([0100])(see Figs. 3-5).
Claim 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tseng US 2019/0366868 (also cited by Applicants)
Regarding claim 1: Tseng at least discloses and shows in Fig. 6: A process for generating and delivering electricity from a charging pole into a power grid(see [0076]-[0082] and Fig. 6) comprising the following steps:
-Receiving a first control command and/or first information, from which a control command is generated([0080]), from a data network connected to the charging pole(see Fig. 6 and (50),(400),(15),(14)),
-Execute the first control command and/or the control command generated from the first information(see [0081]-[0082]; Fig. 6 and (200),(12),(14), (13), (131), (500)),
-Start of the feed-in of electrical energy from the charging pole into a power grid(see Fig. 6, (200), (12), (14), (131), (500) and [0081]-[0082]), and
-Termination of the feed-in of electrical energy from the charging pole into a power grid(note-that since the charging time is a finite quantity, the charging start and charging end are well defined), where the charging pole is suitable and intended for charging batteries of electric vehicles(300)([0074]).
Regarding claim 2, Tseng further discloses, characterised in that a process for energy conversion is started(200)(Fig. 6 and [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 3, Tseng further discloses, a process for energy conversion is terminated(see (200),(12),(13),(14),(131),(500) and [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 4, Tseng further discloses, characterised in that the receiving of a first control command and/or a first information from which a control command is generated and the starting of the feeding of electrical energy from the charging pole into a power grid are causally related(see (200),(12),(13),(14),(131),(500) and [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 5, Tseng further discloses, characterized in that the first control command and/or the control command generated from the first information starts the feed-in of electricity from the charging pole into the power grid connected to the charging pole(see (200),(12),(13),(14),(131),(500) and [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 6, Tseng further discloses, characterized in that the control command starts the energy conversion process(see (200),(12),(13),(14),(131),(500) and [0081]-[0082])(note-the energy conversion is started and ended based on the demand/commands received).
Regarding claim 7, Tseng further discloses, characterized in that the energy conversion takes place in the charging station(Fig. 6, (200) and [0053]).
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 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.
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 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smolenaers US 2020/0062138 A1 in view of Tseng US 2019/0366868 A1 (cited by Applicants).
Regarding claim 18, Smolenaers discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 15. While Smolenaers discusses(see [0194]) the use the banks (80) being able to be charged overnight and discharged behind-the-meter to provide some or all of the onsite demand for the micro-grid during day whilst vehicles are operating but not drawing charging current from the stations, he fails to expressly disclose the limitations of, “the charging pole comprises a measuring device suitable for and intended to measure the amount of energy delivered to the power grid connected to the charging pole during a feed-in operation”.
In the same field of endeavor, namely electric vehicle supply system, Tseng discloses and shows in Fig. 6, factual evidence of, the charging pole comprises a measuring device (131) suitable for and intended to measure the amount of energy delivered to the power grid connected to the charging pole during a feed-in operation([0078]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Smolenaers with the teachings of Tseng by including a measuring device suitable for and intended to measure the amount of energy delivered to the power grid connected to the charging pole during a feed-in operation, as recited, in order that the return-back power output from the output power conversion device can be sold through the intelligent electric meter back to the commercial power supply, as per the teachings of Tseng ([0078])(as per claim 12).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng US 2019/0366868 A1 in view of Smolenaers US 2020/0062138 A1 (cited by Applicants).
Regarding claim 8, Tseng does not expressly disclose, a second control command and/or second information from which a control command is generated is received from a data network connected to the charging pole.
However, in the same field of endeavor, namely electric vehicle supply system, Smolenaers disclose, a second control command and/or second information(construed as control pilot signal) from which a control command is generated is received from a data network(construed as station 5) connected to the charging pole (see [0122],[0125])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Tseng with the teachings of Smolenaers by including, a second control command and/or second information from which a control command is generated is received from a data network connected to the charging pole, as recited, in order to provide an electrical connection to the anode and cathode of battery bank through the protection circuits and isolation circuits defined by controller, as per the teachings of Smolenaers([0122]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim, patentability exists at least in part with the claimed limitations of, “…the receipt of the second control command and/or the second information and the termination of the feed-in of electrical energy from the charging pole into a power grid are causally related”.
Claim 10 depend directly from claim 9 and thus is allowable for the same reasons.
Claim 11 would be allowable if the dependency is changed from claim 1 to claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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, TAELOR KIM can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 December 17, 2025
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859