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
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUDA et al. (US 12,291,122 B2, hereinafter TSUDA) in view of YANG et al. (US 11,413,984 B2, hereinafter YANG).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 16 (claim 11 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), TSUDA discloses an energy management system for an electric vehicle, the system comprising:
a processor circuit (See Fig.1, discloses a processor 20 in an EV telematics server 10); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine- readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (See Fig.1, discloses a storage device comprising a portion 60 which stores computer program), cause the processor circuit to:
obtain, from a grid interface, grid data indicative of an energy purchase price (See Fig.1, discloses a EV telematics server, Col.4, lines 38-41, disclose the EV telematics server is connected via the internet i.e. an interface of a network card. Col.3, lines 20-39, disclose the telematics server receives charging condition information including price at each location, charging standard, charging voltage and Col.10, lines 181-31 discloses receiving a time variable price plan for the charging locations and Col.10, lines 56-67, disclose receiving an indication of whether a charging location is located in a demand response area. All the previously mentioned data is interpreted to be data that is received by the EV telematics server 10 from the grid via a communication interface), and a plurality of charging locations (See Fig.8, discloses receiving coordinates of a plurality of charging locations P1-P4. Col.11, line 15-22 disclose the processor extracts the charging condition data from each of the charging locations);
obtain, from a vehicle management controller, vehicle data indicative of mission information (See Col.5, lines 20-27, Col.6, lines 19-38 and Fig.2, disclose receiving user probe data 31 comprising time, coordinates and speed of the vehicle. This data is indicative of vehicle mission information as it is used in step S11 in behavior analysis. The behavior analysis data is then used to predict user behavior in steps S12-S13.Col.5, lines 21-27 disclose that the predicted user behavior includes the predicted travelling schedule i.e. origin, destination, date and time, also interpreted as the mission), an energy requirement associated with the mission based on the energy requirement and a stored energy amount stored by the electric vehicle (See Figs.1, Item#34-35 and Fig.4, Item#34, and Col.5, lines 28-57, disclose calculating the predicted power consumption for the route [that is predicted to be followed by the user] and Col.11, lines 31-47, disclose the charging plan is created based such that the SOC does not fall below a threshold, i.e. the predicted consumption does not exceed the SOC+the amount that is charged to the vehicle battery); and
generate, based on the grid data and the vehicle data, a strategy for charging (See Fig.7, Step#S14 discloses generating a charging plan based on the grid data [charging condition data 37], the strategy comprising machine-readable instructions that cause the processor circuit to:
select at least one charging location of the plurality of charging locations (See Fig.7 and Col.11, lines 1-14, disclose selecting the charging location that is not part of a demand response i.e. increased charging prices); and
select at least one charging time for charging the electric vehicle at the selected charging location (See Col.11, lines 8-13, disclose avoid selecting charging during demand response time i.e. scheduling charging at the location during a non demand response time); and
transmit information indicative of the strategy to the electric vehicle (See Col.12, lines 15-22, disclose transmitting the charging plan to the vehicle).
However, TSUDA does not disclose obtaining from the grid energy re-sale price and generating a strategy for charging based on the obtained energy re-sale price.
YANG discloses a system for charging an electric vehicle comprising obtaining from the grid energy re-sale price and generating a strategy for charging based on the obtained energy re-sale price (See Col.11, line 63 to Col.12, line 15, disclose discharging the vehicle to the grid when the energy price “resale price” is high).
TSUDA and YANG are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging management systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA with the teachings of YANG by obtaining the energy re-sale price and generating a strategy for charging based on the obtained energy re-sale price as one of the considered factors for the benefit of reducing the charging cost by discharging power to the grid during high price periods and charging the vehicle from the grid during low price periods.
Regarding claim 16, the examiner explains that the only limitations not disclosed by claims 1 and 11 are the following: operate the electric vehicle based on the strategy to: cause the electric vehicle to travel to the at least one selected charging location; and cause the electric vehicle to charge at the at least one selected charging station at the at least one selected time. TSUDA discloses transmitting the strategy to the vehicle to be displayed on a display device such that the user recognizes the travelling schedule and the charging plan (See, Col.12, lines 15-29. Tt is implicit that the user operates uses the display data and operates the vehicle according to the charging plan by driving the vehicle following the recommended route and charges the vehicle at the selected charging location).
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 17 (claim 12 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), TSUDA and YANG disclose the energy management system of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein the vehicle data further comprises charging current data associated with the plurality of charging locations (See TSUDA, Col.12, lines 56-63, disclose using whether quick charging is required as a factor in developing the charging plan), and ambient external temperature data associated the mission (See TSUDA, Col.5, lines 44-52, disclose taking temperature into consideration for developing the charging plan), and wherein the estimated charging time is further based on the charging current data and the ambient external temperature data (See TSUDA, Figs.1 and 7, Step#S14 disclose developing a charging plan based on the temperature which affects consumption and the presence of a request of receiving quick charging and the availability of quick charging at the charging location).
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 18 (claim 13 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), TSUDA and YANG disclose the energy management system of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein generating the strategy is further based on an estimated energy purchase price at the selected charging location for the selected charging time (See TSUDA, Figs.1 and 4, Item#34 and Col.10, lines 13-26, disclose developing a charging plan based on charging conditions comprising energy price at each location during the charging time).
Regarding claims 5,14 and 19 (Claim 14 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), TSUDA and YANG disclose the energy management system of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein selecting the charging location is further based on an estimated energy re-sale price at the selected charging location (See TSUDA, Col.10, lines 56-67, disclose receiving an indication of whether a charging location is located in a demand response area. And Col.10, lines 18-31, disclose developing charging plan based on variable pricing plan, i.e. selecting a charging area which provides a lower cost. YANG, Col.11, line 63 to Col.12, line 15, disclose discharging the vehicle to the grid when the energy price “resale price” is high).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify disclosed by TSUDA with the teachings of YANG by selecting a charging location which minimizes charging costs [TSUDA] by selecting the charging location with the highest energy re-sale price for the benefit of reducing charging cost.
Regarding claims 6, 15 and 20 (claim 15 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), TSUDA and YANG disclose the energy management system of claim 14 as discussed above, wherein selecting the charging time is further based on the estimated energy re-sale price at the selected charging location (See TSUDA, Col.10, lines 56-67, disclose receiving an indication of whether a charging location is located in a demand response area. And Col.10, lines 18-31 and Col.11, lines 7-10, disclose developing charging plan based on variable pricing plan, i.e. selecting a charging area which provides a lower cost. YANG discloses considering the energy re-sale price. The examiner explains that it would have been obvious modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA with the teachings of YANG to select discharging times during high energy re-sale price fort the benefit of reducing the cost and selecting charging when the charging cost is low).
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUDA in view of YANG and in further view of SINGH et al. (US 2022/0085626 A1, hereinafter SINGH).
Regarding claims 4 and 7 (claim 4 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), TSUDA and YANG disclose the energy management method of claim 3 as discussed above, However, TSUDA and YANG do not disclose wherein the estimated energy purchase price for the charging location includes a carbon penalty component.
SINGH discloses a system and method for identifying an optimal charging station comprising estimating energy purchase price for the charging location includes a carbon penalty component (See Par.56, discloses the cost includes carbon credits, the lack of carbon credits is interpreted as a penalty).
TSUDA, YANG and SINGH are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle charging and station selection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA and YANG with the teachings of SINGH by considering carbon penalty component in estimating energy purchase price for the benefit of ensuring the optimal charging station is selected by considering all price components including carbon penalty and credits.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUDA in view of YANG and in further view of NIKULIN et al. (US 2018/0143029 A1, hereinafter NIKULIN).
Regarding claims 8-10, TSUDA and YANG disclose the energy management method of claim 1 as discussed above, However TSUDA and YANG do not disclose further comprising:
determining a change in at least one of the grid data or the vehicle data; and
modifying the strategy based on the determined change in the at least one of the grid data or the vehicle data.
NIKULIN discloses an intelligent system and method for routing a vehicle to a charging station comprising:
determining a change in at least one of the grid data or the vehicle data (See Par.38 and 58, disclose receiving a change in charging station wait time, traffic congestion, terrain, or weather conditions); and
modifying the strategy based on the determined change in the at least one of the grid data or the vehicle data (See Par.38 and 58, disclose changing/updating the route to go to a different charging station other than the station originally selected or adjusting the wait time based on the changed data).
TSUDA, YANG and NIKULIN are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle charging optimization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA and YANG with the teachings of NIKULIN by determining a change in the grid or vehicle data and modifying the charging strategy for the benefit of optimizing the vehicle charging based on the latest available data since a previous charging plan may no longer be the optimal choice.
References considered but not relied upon:
AMBROKIAK et al. (US 10,819,135 B2): A system for developing a vehicle charging schedule based on received vehicle data and user selected preference including maximizing charge, reducing cost or making money.
SUGANUMA et al. (US 2012/0306446 A1): An information provision device including: charging station information acquisition means for acquiring information on charging stations; traffic-flow acquisition means for acquiring a traffic flow of vehicles using external electrical energy in the vicinity of each charging station on which the information is acquired by the charging station information acquisition means; and charging station determination means for determining a charging station on which the information is to be provided among the charging station based on the traffic flow acquired by the traffic-flow acquisition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM EST.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights