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 .
Claims 18-31 have been presented for examination.
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) 18-19, 21-24 and 26-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atluri1 and Ree2 in view of Hyde et al [Hyde] PGPUB 2014/0089064.
Referring to claim 18, A control system arranged to control transfer of energy to and from a heavy- duty vehicle, wherein the control system implements an application programming interface (API) configured to allow connections between control modules of the heavy-duty vehicle and/or from one or more external entities to the vehicle
wherein the control system is configured to determine an available amount of energy for transfer from the vehicle to an external consumer, and a desired amount of energy to transfer to the vehicle from an external energy source [abstract, 0034].
wherein the control system is configured to exchange information related to the available amount of energy for transfer from the vehicle via the API [abstract, 0034, 0051].
wherein the control system is configured to exchange information related to the available amount of energy for transfer to the vehicle via the API [abstract, 0034, 0051].
In summary, Atluri teaches a system wherein vehicle to vehicle charging can occur. The process involves a supplying vehicle to indicate how much battery power is available to provide to another vehicle. Depending on your perspective, the receiving vehicle will receive information regarding how much power it can receive from the supplying vehicle. From the other perspective, the supplying vehicle will send information regarding how much power it can supply to the receiving vehicle. The communication is interpreted as an API since it comprises application software executing in the cloud with the vehicles communicating via program [0005, 0057].
While Atluri teaches the invention substantially as claimed above it is not explicitly taught to trigger transmission of a message if a transfer is unwanted or unauthorized. Ree teaches that unauthorized charging can trigger an alert indicating the unauthorized charging [0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Ree into Atluri because it would keep the user knowledgeable with regards to the charging process.
While the Atluri-Ree combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly to compare a current energy transfer to an energy transfer strategy and thus, does not trigger the transmission of the message in response to the energy transfer not being in line with the energy transfer strategy. Hyde teaches an energy exchange control system wherein the vehicle side can monitor the transfer to ensure that it occurs according to a prior negotiation [0025, 0050, 0059]. Hyde further teaches that monitoring can detect discrepancies such as issues with the transfer itself “and/or cheating by the second user” and in response, “alert the user to discrepancies and/or terminate the transfer” [0052]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Hyde into the Atluri-Ree combination because it would further add the ability to not only recognize and alert a user of an unauthorized connection (as taught in Ree) but also alert the user in response to discrepancies during the transfer process itself and allow for termination of the transfer in response to the discrepancy as taught by Hyde.
Referring to claim 19, Atluri teaches identifying optimal locations for the first and second vehicle and directs them to the common location (i.e., vehicle motion management control) and also teaches the vehicles can be a truck (i.e., heavy-duty vehicle) [0023, 0039].
Referring to claim 21, Atluri teaches that the amount of energy is requested [0010].
Referring to claim 22, Atluri teaches that cost is a factor in determining where to charge from [0016].
Referring to claim 23, Atluri teaches sending information indicating an amount of energy that is available for transfer [abstract]. The available amount is related to the total amount of energy that it is capable of transferring.
Referring to claim 24, Atluri teaches that information regarding location and supplier types are exchanged [0051]. Customer-to-customer, and customer-to-business are interpreted as different provider types.
Referring to claim 26, Atluri teaches vehicles have their own controller (i.e., vehicle controller) while also communicating information about an amount of available energy, the vehicle GPS location [0005, 0034, 0041].
Referring to claim 27, Atluri teaches that the system in part includes cloud computing [0005].
Referring to claim 28, Atluri teaches vehicles communicating information about an amount of available energy (related to energy transfer) and GPS location (related to vehicle motion management) [0034]. Because the vehicles are directed to a common location, the GPS coordinates are interpreted as being related to vehicle motion management [0023].
Referring to claims 29-31, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Atluri, Ree and Hyde teach the system and therefore teach the method, vehicle and program performing the same.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atluri, Ree and Hyde as applied to claims 18-19, 21-24 and 26-31 above, and further in view of Kaufman et al3.
Referring to claim 20, Atluri further teaches that an option presented to a user is the ability to charge from a charging station [0037]. But while Atluri teaches charging from a charging station, it is not explicitly taught to maintain a list of energy types available for transfer. Kaufman teaches that vehicles can further charge from solar panels, wind turbines, battery sources, engine fuel sources and can also be charged via either AC or DC forms [0035]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Atluri-Ree-Hyde combination to include a list with the additional sources of power because Atluri further considers CO2 footprint with respect to charging [0055] and thus knowing if a charging source were supplied via renewable energy (i.e. wind/solar) vs an engine powered by fuel, the user would be able to make a more informed decision. Regarding AC vs DC charging, there are known benefits and shortfalls with respect to AC charging vs DC charging. For example, AC charging is cheaper and slower while DC charging is faster but generates more heat and thus adds stress to the battery system. Having a list of which charging options provide AC and DC charging would also allow a user to make a more informed decision with respect to charging.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atluri, Ree and Hyde as applied to claims 18-19, 21-24 and 26-31 above, and further in view of Daum et al4.
Referring to claim 25, while the Atluri-Ree combination teach the invention as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to obtain information about an energy transfer capability of the vehicle; upcoming transport mission, and one or more power sources. Furthermore, the Atluri-Ree-Hyde combination does not teach determining tactics for when to transfer energy to the vehicle in dependence of the energy transfer capability, the upcoming transport mission and the one or more power sources in the environment, wherein the tactics are determined under a constraint to fulfil the upcoming transport mission. Daum teaches the above [0120-0125]. In summary, Daum teaches determining a trip required by the vehicle. The route is planned by accounting for a total amount of energy that the vehicle can store (information about an energy transfer capability), locations of off-board energy sources (one or more power sources) and determines parameters like speed, energy costs, alternative routes and when to stop to recharge. These considerations are evaluated and updated when necessary. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Daum into the Atluri-Ree-Hyde combination because doing so would optimize a route plan when traveling from one location to another. Because Atluri teaches including cloud-based control, it is interpreted that the Atluri-Ree-Hyde-Daum combination that the tactics taught in Daum would be generated at the command center (i.e., cloud) and then sent to the vehicle (i.e., external entity with respect to the cloud-based command center) for providing information regarding the transport mission. This has similarity to the control center sending directions to a common location for multiple vehicles [0023].
Cited Art Not Relied Upon
PGPUB 2023/0052002 to Salter et al5 teaches comparing actual observed transfer metrics to metrics specified in the agreed upon terms for a charge transfer between vehicles [0080].
PGPUB 2019/0047427 to Pogorelik teaches continuously monitoring a charge process to assure a proper amount if charge is transferred relative to payment [0036].
PGPUB 2010/0049396 to Ferro et al teaches a vehicle charging system that sets transfer conditions, detects violations and interrupts charging in response [0027, 0044, 0053, 0058, 0073, 0084].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 8/7/26
1 Cited in the previous office action.
2 Cited in the previous office action.
3 Cited by applicant and in the previous office action.
4 Cited by applicant and in the previous office action.
5 Inelligable as prior art due to later priority date.
Prosecution Insights