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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims are directed to a newly recited discharging operation. The claims presently recite controlling the charging strategy is such that a remaining level of charge is sufficient to continue a planned driving. The newly added limitation is cited in the Remarks (at 6) as the distinguishing characteristic however the Remarks fail to cite where support may be found in the disclosure for said newly added limitation. A review of the disclosure paragraph 47 is the closest match. Here vehicle to grid operation is discussed broadly see “parked electric vehicles or hybrid cars can be used in the stop positions as intermediate energy stores (vehicle-to-grid, V2G)”. The disclosure describes generally V2G as a possible operation, and at paragraph 0031 the specification recites taking into account a planned route a part of charging request. The disclosure stops short of particular description to support the claim language. The detailed discharging operation to an external electrical system to support a charging strategy is determined such that charge remains in the battery for the motor vehicle to continue a planned driving is therefore, new matter and must be removed.
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.
Claims 1-16 are 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.
Claims present the phrase “can be” this renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The phrase in this instance renders the subsequent claim limitations to be an optional operation. Optional operations cannot distinguish the claims from the cited prior art.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borrelli et al. (US 20230053922) in view of Song (CN109768561).
With respect to claims 1-3, 6, 12-16 Borrelli teaches a method for carrying out an automated charging (paragraph 0014, 22) process for a battery of a motor vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
transmitting a charging request for the battery of the motor vehicle (see reporting data at arrival paragraph 0019) from a first data transmission unit to a second data transmission unit (transmission from 102 see paragraph 0013 for example) which is part of a charging management system (see management performed between vehicle/user and cloud) and is connected to a computing unit (sever) of the charging management system, wherein the charging management system is assigned a parking lot for motor vehicles (see Fig. 1), and the parking lot includes a plurality of stop positions (shown in Fig. 1); determining a battery status of the battery (see SoC, charging power, capacity paragraph 0019); determining, by the computing unit of the charging management system, a charging strategy (see solving and optimizing charging paragraph 0020, 25, see SPCM paragraph 0028) for the motor vehicle for charging the battery taking into account the battery status (paragraph 0036); moving (automated paragraph 0022 or user driver) the motor vehicle to a suitable charging position (see stations Fig. 1) of the parking lot, and charging the battery of the motor vehicle (EV or PHEV batteries paragraph 0035-37) according to the charging strategy in the suitable charging position by a charging station assigned (see assigned time and location paragraph 0020) to the suitable charging position at a charging time and for a charging duration (see desired SOC at departure, expected departure paragraph 0019), wherein at least the charging time and the charging duration arise from the charging strategy. Borrelli does not teach during periods when the motor vehicle is parked at a stop position, energy stored in the battery can be discharged to an external electrical system according to the charging strategy, and the charging strategy is determined such that sufficient charge remains in the battery for the motor vehicle to continue a planned driving. Song teaches during periods when the motor vehicle is parked at a stop position, energy stored in the battery can be discharged to an external electrical system (grid) according to the charging strategy, and the charging strategy (paragraph 3-6 under Specific implementation methods) is determined such that sufficient charge remains in the battery for the motor vehicle to continue a planned driving (see for example paragraphs detailing S34-S36 also see claim 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Borrelli to include the discharging strategy as seen in Song for the benefit of preserving the vehicle charge to finish a route and user may meet their needs.
With respect to claim 5 Borrelli teaches the battery status or a component of the battery status is part of the charging request (paragraph 0019-20) and/or the battery status is transmitted to the charging management system separately from the charging request and/or the battery status is transmitted to the charging management system (see paragraph 0013) by an external computing unit connected to the charging management system.
With respect to claim 7 Borrelli teaches determination of the charging strategy includes determining and/or taking into account the suitable charging position (paragraph 0018) and/or the charging time and/or the charging duration and/or a target state of charge and/or a method of charging the battery (paragraph 0019, 0025, 31, 33 36).
With respect to claim 9 Borrelli teaches wherein the determination of the charging strategy is carried out taking into account: i) other charging strategies of other motor vehicles, and/or ii) charging requests for batteries of other motor vehicles (paragraph 0020-24).
With respect to claim 10 Borrelli teaches before and/or after moving the motor vehicle to the suitable charging position (see assigned spot and time paragraph 0020), the computing unit of the charging management system determines a stop position and a stop period for the stop position, and that the motor vehicle is moved to the determined stop position and the motor vehicle is parked in the determined stop position for the determined stop period (see charging until finished and move next vehicle on waitlist into position paragraph 0020-24).
With respect to claim 11 Borrelli teaches the computing unit of the charging management system redetermines the charging strategy for the motor vehicle: when another motor vehicle has transmitted its own charging request for its own battery to the second data transmission unit (see adding vehicles to waitlist and solving parking/path/charging requirements for reporting vehicle).
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20200198489) in view of Song (CN109768561).
With respect to claims 1-3, 6, and 12-16 Yoon teaches a method for carrying out an automated charging process for a battery of a motor vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
transmitting a charging request for the battery of the motor vehicle (see vehicles Fig. 3) from a first data transmission unit (see paragraph 0039: see Fig. 2) to a second data transmission unit (paragraph 0033-34) which is part of a charging management system (see control system infrastructure for example paragraph 0033) and is connected to a computing unit (server) of the charging management system, wherein the charging management system is assigned a parking lot for motor vehicles (Seen bet in Fig. 3/8), and the parking lot includes a plurality of stop positions (see areas and spaces); determining a battery status of the battery (paragraph 0083); determining, by the computing unit of the charging management system, a charging strategy (see Fig. 9) for the motor vehicle for charging the battery taking into account the battery status (see paragraph 0083); moving (see step e Fig. 9) the motor vehicle to a suitable charging position (see charging spaces Fig .3/8) of the parking lot, and charging the battery of the motor vehicle (paragraph 0025 and 83) according to the charging strategy in the suitable charging position by a charging station assigned (see step d Fig. 9) to the suitable charging position at a charging time and for a charging duration (when desired percentage is reached paragraph 0087), wherein at least the charging time and the charging duration arise from the charging strategy. Yoon does not teach during periods when the motor vehicle is parked at a stop position, energy stored in the battery can be discharged to an external electrical system according to the charging strategy, and the charging strategy is determined such that sufficient charge remains in the battery for the motor vehicle to continue a planned driving. Song teaches during periods when the motor vehicle is parked at a stop position, energy stored in the battery can be discharged to an external electrical system (grid) according to the charging strategy, and the charging strategy (paragraph 3-6 under Specific implementation methods) is determined such that sufficient charge remains in the battery for the motor vehicle to continue a planned driving (see for example paragraphs detailing S34-S36 also see claim 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yoon to include the discharging strategy as seen in Song for the benefit of preserving the vehicle charge to finish a route and user may meet their needs.
With respect to claim 5 Yoon teaches the battery status or a component of the battery status (see paragraph 0083) is part of the charging request (see step b/c Fig. 9) and/or the battery status is transmitted to the charging management system separately (when charging is desired by user) from the charging request and/or the battery status is transmitted to the charging management system (sent from vehicle or phone to central controller infrastructure) by an external computing unit connected to the charging management system.
With respect to claim 7 Yoon teaches determination of the charging strategy includes determining and/or taking into account the suitable charging position (see step d Fig. 9) and/or the charging time and/or the charging duration and/or a target state of charge (paragraph 0087) and/or a method of charging the battery.
With respect to claim 9 Yoon teaches wherein the determination of the charging strategy is carried out taking into account: i) other charging strategies of other motor vehicles, and/or ii) charging requests for batteries of other motor vehicles (see allocating spaces for charging and automated movement of vehicles).
With respect to claim 10 Yoon teaches before and/or after moving the motor vehicle to the suitable charging position (see assigned spot step d/e Fig. 9), the computing unit of the charging management system determines a stop position (step f/g Fig. 9) and a stop period for the stop position, and that the motor vehicle is moved to the determined stop position and the motor vehicle is parked in the determined stop position for the determined stop period (see charging until finished desired percentage reached).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borrelli et al. (US 20230053922) in view of Song (CN109768561) in view of Moghe et al. (US 20190202304)
With respect to claim 4 Borrelli teaches the determining a charging strategy however does not teach using expected remaining life of the battery. Moghe teaches the known use of taking into account an expected remaining battery life (paragraph 0034) of the battery after the battery has been charged. Moghe teaches the known advantages of battery life in configuring charging capabilities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Borrelli to include the known use of taking battery life into account for the benefit of determining appropriate charging parameters.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borrelli et al. (US 20230053922) in view of Song (CN109768561) in view of Moghe et al. (US 20190202304) in view of Borhan (US 20150326037)
With respect to claim 8 Borrelli teaches the charging strategy however does not teach maximizing battery life. It is known to account for and maximize life of a battery (paragraph 0026) as seen for example in Borhan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Borelli to maximize life for the benefit of reduced user expense.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights