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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant has cancelled claim 4 and incorporated its contents into independent claim 1.
“and wherein the power supply circuit comprises:
a charging communication circuit connected to the charging gun, and configured to obtain a communication signal of an electric vehicle connected to the charging gun, and control the charging gun to charge the electric vehicle according to the communication signal;
a relay connected to the charging communication circuit, and configured to provide power from a power source system to the charging gun; and
a control circuit connected to the signal processing circuit, and controlled by the signal processing circuit to adjust the relay to be in a disabled state or an enabled state.”
In rejecting claim 4, the examiner had previously written,
The ‘relay’ is just the charging cable. Anyone with experience in EVs understands that this is selectively enabled or disabled according to charging needs (i.e. stop when charging reaches full). This is all standard and nearly universal.
The examiner stands by this. As the owner of a Tesla manufactured prior to the date of the effective filing date of the instant invention, the examiner can state that the vehicle charging system operates in the manner claimed. In particular, the examiner has on many occasions used Tesla Superchargers that do everything claimed, since before the date of the invention.
In particular, the charging system:
Communicates with the vehicle and knows the charge of the vehicle.
Controls charging, slowing as charging nears completion and then stopping when charging is complete.
The relay (the charging cable) can deliver power or stop depending on the power level that has been reached.
This is fairly standard. The applicant has claimed nothing knew with the above features. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. (US 2023/0286409).
Re claim 1:
Feldman et al.’s system is shown in figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The system that is claimed is standardized and widespread.
Feldman et al. discloses (abstract):
“This disclosure discusses systems, methods, and techniques for charging a plurality of electric vehicles (EVs). In one aspect, a system may include a plurality of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), and the EVSEs are coupled between a power grid and the EVs. The system may also include a plurality of power meters, and a respective power meter may measure an amount of power received from a respective EV. The system may determine an instance of communication connectivity between the system and the EVs. After establishing communication, the system may communicate with the EVs using any communication protocol and/or standard. The communication may then enable the system to receive EV characteristics, for example, a state of charge of each EV. Based on the EV characteristics, the system may then determine power conversion efficiencies of each EVSE. By so doing, the system can determine power losses associated with each EVSE. Finally, based on the EV characteristics, the power losses associated with each EVSE, and/or a power availability, for example, from the power grid, the system may balance power loads associated with the EVSEs and/or the EVs.”
With respect to the claim:
EVSE means electric vehicle supply equipment, and is the same thing as a ‘charging pile’
The EVSE system is AC in some embodiments. “[0010] FIG. 3 illustrates another system with a plurality of EVSEs that are used for charging a plurality of EVs simultaneously, the EVSEs being AC charging stations, according to one embodiment.”
A charging gun is just the EV connector, standard in all EV systems
As figure 1 shows, the user’s smartphone controls the charging. The examiner owns a 2022 Tesla Model Y and can attest this standard arrangement wherein the user can control charging through an app on the phone, technology that was established since prior to the date of the invention.
As seen above, a central system can control the power and charging for each vehicle and each EVSE. In addition, the examiner can attest that in concert with charging equipment, the vehicle and the phone can both communicate charging needs to the EVSE and be supplied power in accordance with these needs.
The applicant has cancelled claim 4 and incorporated its contents into independent claim 1.
“and wherein the power supply circuit comprises:
a charging communication circuit connected to the charging gun, and configured to obtain a communication signal of an electric vehicle connected to the charging gun, and control the charging gun to charge the electric vehicle according to the communication signal;
a relay connected to the charging communication circuit, and configured to provide power from a power source system to the charging gun; and
a control circuit connected to the signal processing circuit, and controlled by the signal processing circuit to adjust the relay to be in a disabled state or an enabled state.”
In rejecting claim 4, the examiner had previously written,
The ‘relay’ is just the charging cable. Anyone with experience in EVs understands that this is selectively enabled or disabled according to charging needs (i.e. stop when charging reaches full). This is all standard and nearly universal.
The examiner stands by this. As the owner of a Tesla manufactured prior to the date of the effective filing date of the instant invention, the examiner can state that the vehicle charging system operates in the manner claimed. In particular, the examiner has on many occasions used Tesla Superchargers that do everything claimed, since before the date of the invention.
In particular, the charging system:
Communicates with the vehicle and knows the charge of the vehicle.
Controls charging, slowing as charging nears completion and then stopping when charging is complete.
The relay (the charging cable) can deliver power or stop depending on the power level that has been reached.
Re claims 2 and 3: There will be some protocol that is employed for communications as per the above, between phone, vehicle, EVSE and the central network. All of these communications channels are shown in figure 1.
Re claim 5: The ‘relay’ is just the charging cable. Anyone with experience in EVs understands that this is selectively enabled or disabled according to charging needs (i.e. stop when charging reaches full). This is all standard and nearly universal.
Re claims 10-18:
All of the claimed elements are seen in figure 1 and follow from the configuration seen in Feldman et al.
Claims 6-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wiseman et al. (US 2020/0238847).
Feldman et al. doesn’t explicitly teach that vehicles are charged at different priority levels, especially based on different time constraints, vehicle type, changing needs etc.
Wiseman et al. teaches, with emphasis by examiner:
“[0025] At S220, the system may evaluate the delta platform certificate to determine if the electric vehicle is associated with a prioritized service category. In some cases, this may be performed by accessing a prioritization data store containing a plurality of different vehicle category types, each type being associated with a prioritization weight. For example, a delivery truck for a particular enterprise may receive a higher prioritization (because the enterprise has agreed to pay a higher price for power).
[0026] At S230, the system may execute a constrained optimizer to allocate service to the electric vehicle, relative to other electric vehicles being serviced by the service point, based at least in part on the determination. The constrained optimizer might be associated with, for example, a time available to charge, a demand of charge, an amount of energy available at the charging station, a maximum power associated with a distribution transformer, etc. According to some embodiments, the constrained optimizer is associated with voltage, current, a charging rate limit, a duty ratio, a transformer temperature, a load, a visit date, a driver preference, a radio frequency identifier tag, a demand response command, weather data (e.g., a snow plow might receive a higher priority during a snow storm), pricing data, a firewall log file, a location of a public service facility (e.g., how far away is the nearest hospital or fire station?).”
Thus, many types of data can serve as constraints.
In view of the teachings of Wiseman et al., it would have been obvious to use a range of candidate charging data as claimed in order to best optimize charging according to customer type, vehicle time, time available to charge and much more.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Thomas K. Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/DANIEL A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights