DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits, in response to the claims received 4/6/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending for prosecution below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) file on 4/6/2023 has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility. Claims lacks any recitation of structure, let alone a recitation which creates a substantial tie so as to impose meaningful limitations on the claim scope because is merely a set of instructions. There is nothing of record which clearly indicates that the method recited is not directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3,9-10,12-15,18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nyu,(USNO.2014/0117933).
As for claim 1, Nyu discloses and shows in Figs.1, 6-7 a vehicle charge control method, comprising: detecting that a vehicle (ref’s electric vehicle) is discharging electrical power; detecting that the vehicle is, during the discharging, attempting a charging of a traction battery of the vehicle by receiving electrical power (via commercial power); assessing (via ref’s target power amount) whether the electrical power that is discharging is used for attempting the charging (charging and discharging at the same time); and responding to the assessing (par.[0032-0036,0045]).
As for claim 2, Nyu discloses and shows in Figs.1, 6-7 responding includes stopping the discharging.
As for claim 3, Nyu discloses and shows in Figs.1, 6-7 responding includes stopping the charging.
As for claim 9, Nyu discloses and shows in Figs.1, 6-7 the discharging is through an outlet of the vehicle.
As for claim 10, Nyu discloses and shows in Fig. 6 assessing includes comparing an electrical parameter of the electrical power that is discharging to the same electrical parameter of the electrical power that is attempting the charging
As for claim 12, Nyu discloses and shows in Fig. 6 the electrical parameter is a waveform.
As for claim 13, Nyu discloses and shows in Fig. 6 assessing includes introducing noise (via response within the flowcart) into the electrical power that is discharging from the vehicle, and then detecting whether or not the electrical power that is received by the vehicle when attempting the charging includes the noise.
As for claim 14, Nyu discloses and shows in Fig. 6 assessing includes introducing a signal (via response within the flowcart) into the electrical power that is discharging from the vehicle, and then detecting whether or not the electrical power that is received by the vehicle when attempting the charging includes the signal
As for claim 15, Nyu discloses signal (via response within the flowcart) is a frequency modulated signal
As for claim 18, Nyu discloses and shows vehicle is receiving the electrical power that is attempting the charging through a charge port (via ref’s charger) of the vehicle (par.[0028]).
As for claim 19, Nyu discloses and shows in Figs.1, 6-7 vehicle charge control system, comprising: a charge port that receives electrical power to attempt a charge of a traction battery of a vehicle (ref’s electric vehicle); one or more electrical outlets (via ref’s discharging from the vehicle) that discharge electrical power from the vehicle; and a control module (via power management) that assesses (via ref’s target power amount) whether the electrical power that is discharging is used for the charging (par.[0032-0036,0045]).
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 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.
Claim(s) 4-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyu in view of Fernandez Banares et al, (Fernandez Banares), (USNO.2012/0161778).
As for claim 4, Fernandez Banares discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose responding includes providing an alert
Fernandez Banares discloses responding includes providing an alert (par.[0024])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Nyu by using responding includes providing an alert for advantages such as providing the abilty to inform operator safety status (par.[0024]) , as taught by Fernandez Bananres.
As for claim 5, Nyu in combination with Fernandez Banares discloses the alert is an audible alert.
As for claim 6, Nyu in combination with Fernandez Banares discloses the alert is a visual alert.
As for claim 7, Nyu in combination with Fernandez Banares discloses the responding includes stopping the charging, and the alert includes information (via ref’s safety) about the stopping (par.[0024]).
As for claim 11, Nyu in combination with Fernandes Banares discloses electrical parameter is a voltage
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyu in view of Fernandez Banares et al, (Fernandez Banares), (USNO.2012/0161778) and further in view of Valavanur Umasankar et al, (Valavanur Umasankar), (USNO.2023/0018340)
As for claim 8, Nyu in combination with Fernandes Banares discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose an alert includes information about charging stations that are closest to the vehicle
Valavanur Umasankar discloses an alert includes information about charging stations that are closest to the vehicle (par.[0041])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified combined teachings of Nyu and Fernandes Banares by using an alert that includes information about charging stations that are closest to the vehicle for advantages such as providing the ability to warn a user (par.[0041]) , as taught by Valavanur Umasankar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17, and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16: electrical power that is discharging is the electrical power discharged from a first electrical outlet of the vehicle, and further comprising detecting a discharging of electrical power from a different, second electrical outlet of the vehicle , in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims
Claim 20: control module initiates an alert if the electrical power that is used to attempt the charge of the traction battery is the electrical power that is discharged from the vehicle
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 571-272-2147. 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). 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.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights