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 .
This action is responsive to communications filed on 12/22/2023. As per claims on 12/22/2023
Claims 1-20 are currently pending
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this office action:
Ballatine et al. (US 9,698,598 B2, which has a priority date of 06/26/2012), referred to as Ballatine herein.
Krieg et al. (US 9,208,670 B2, which has a priority date of 12/03/2013), referred to as Krieg herein.
Roark et al. (US 7,471,195 B2, which has a priority date of 10/12/2007), referred to as Roark herein.
Hass et al. (US 11,884,173 B2, which has a priority date of 03/29/2021), referred to as Hass herein.
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 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) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballatine in view of Krieg.
Regarding Claim 1, Ballatine teaches an electric vehicle (EV) charging management system configured for managing charging of a hybrid/electric vehicle (H/EV), ("An EV charging system 1001 includes a modular fuel cell system 1002 and a EVCS 1004." (col. 18, lines 25-27), and "In an embodiment, the EVCS 1004 includes at least one charging DC/DC converter 602A that provides a voltage suitable for charging EV 1006 (for example, 300 VDC-600 VDC)." (col. 18, lines 30-33), disclosing a complete EV management charging system (EVCS 1004) that manages delivery of electrical power to electric vehicles during charging, constituting an EV charging management system configured for managing charging of H/EVs);
Ballatine does not explicitly disclose an EV charging system for charging a Lithium-ion battery.
However, Krieg teaches the EV charging management system comprising: an EV charging system for charging a Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery; (“If, for safety and building inspectorate reasons, charging stations for hybrid or electric vehicles are to be provided with extinguishing systems filled with an extinguishing medium which extinguishes fires in lithium ion batteries, this extinguishing system can be integrated in the warning system proposed according to the disclosure using the solution proposed according to the disclosure.” (Col 3, line 50-55), directly establishing that H/EV charging stations charge lithium-ion batteries and that fire protection for those batteries during charging is required);
Ballatine teaches and an automatic mechanism of the EV charging system which is related to charging of the H/EV to avoid or restrict fires affecting the Li-Ion battery in their early stages, when they originate from a battery failure while it is being charged, ("the modular fuel cell system enclosure 10 and/or the EVCS 1004 may include thermal sensors which can detect the exothermic event which might come from a vehicle fire such as a battery fire and, if detected, interrupt the circuit to a charging EV." (Col 21, line 55-59), disclosing an automatic mechanism within EVCS 1004 that detects a battery fire in its early stages (exothermic event) while the EV is being charged and automatically interrupts the charging circuit, thereby restricting fires affecting the battery while it is being charged. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
Ballatine also teaches wherein the automatic mechanism comprising, a heat/smoke/gas/particle sensor, ("the modular fuel cell system enclosure 10 and/or the EVCS 1004 may include thermal sensors which can detect the exothermic event which might come from a vehicle fire such as a battery fire" (Col 21, line 55-59), disclosing thermal sensors (heat sensor) positioned at the EV charging system that detect exothermic events (fire), constituting a heat sensor. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
Ballatine teaches a turn-off switch, ("the EVCS 1004 may include thermal sensors which can detect the exothermic event which might come from a vehicle fire such as a battery fire and, if detected, interrupt the circuit to a charging EV." (Col 21, line 56-59), disclosing a circuit interruption mechanism that, upon fire detection, disconnects the charging circuit to the EV, constituting a turn-off switch that stops power delivery to the EV being charged);
Ballatine teaches a processor and a memory storing software (SW) instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the automatic mechanism to: (“Control elements may be implemented using computing devices (such as computer) comprising processors, memory and other components that have been programmed with instructions to perform specific functions or may be implemented in processors designed to perform the specified functions” (Col 23, line 32-37), disclosing a processor and memory executing programmed SW instruction that carry out the described automatic responses upon fire detection. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
Ballatine also teaches detect a fire by sensing heat/smoke/particles via the heat/smoke/gas/particle sensor, ("the modular fuel cell system enclosure 10 and/or the EVCS 1004 may include thermal sensors which can detect the exothermic event which might come from a vehicle fire such as a battery fire" (Col 21, line 55-59), disclosing that the system detects a exothermic event (fire) by sensing heat via the thermal sensors positioned at the EV charging system, constituting detecting a fire by sensing heat via the heat sensor. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
Ballatine teaches and shut off charging to H/EV(s) via the turn-off switch in a vicinity/zone, reducing the potential fire impact and allowing the H/EV(s) that lock themselves to an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) to be moved. ("if detected, interrupt the circuit to a charging EV. When the charging of an EV is interrupted because of the detection of an arc or a fire, the modular fuel cell system enclosure 10 may trigger emergency responses such as paging, fire extinguishment systems such as water spray, a message to the car instructing the car to carry out safety functions, shut-down of adjacent vehicle chargers to prevent a cascade of the incident, a water spray wall between affected car and neighboring cars in order to prevent a cascade of the incident to other vehicles, a water spray wall between the vehicle and the EVCS 1004 and the modular fuel cell system enclosure 10 to prevent spread of the incident to the modular fuel cell system enclosure 10. " (Col 21, line 58 – Col 22, line 4), disclosing that upon detection of a fire or arc, the system shuts off charging to the affected EV via circuit interruption, and further shuts down adjacent vehicle chargers in the surrounding vicinity/zone to reduce the potential fire impact, allowing the area to be cleared. The disclosure of shutting down adjacent vehicle chargers in the zone to prevent cascade explicitly teaches shutting off charging to H/EVs in a vicinity/zone and a water spray wall allows the neighboring cars to be moved. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ballatine’s EV charging fire detection and charger shutdown system with Krieg’s Lithium-Ion battery fire warning system for H/EV charging stations, to arrive at the claimed EV charging management system configured for managing charging of an H/EV equipped with a lithium-ion battery, wherein an automatic mechanism restricts fires affecting the lithium-ion battery in their early stages.
The motivation for doing so would have been to address the well-recognized and documented hazard of lithium-ion battery fires at H/EV charging stations during the charging operation. As Krieg states “The task of the battery management system is to monitor the individual battery cells in the individual battery modules in the battery pack and to prevent the danger, which was outlined above and constitutes an extreme case, by monitoring the safety-relevant parameters and reliably precluding charging or operation of the battery cells in the battery modules outside the predefined specifications.” (Col 1, line 32-39), acknowledging the problem of lithium-ion battery fires at H/EV charging stations during charging and recognizing fire safety concern requiring an integrated solution. Therefore, combining Krieg’s lithium-ion battery fire protection framework with Ballatine’s EV charging fire detection and shutdown mechanism to produce the predictable result of an integrated, fire safe EV charging management system for Lithium-Ion battery H/EVs.
Regarding Claim 11, a method claim that incorporates the system of Claim 1, is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-10 and 12-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballatine in view of Krieg further in view of Roark.
Regarding Claim 2, Ballatine and Krieg teach EVSE as seen above, but do not explicitly disclose a fire system protecting a certain zone with different control groups having a set of causes and effects.
However, Roark teaches a fire alarm system protecting a certain zone, wherein the fire alarm system includes different control groups, with a set of causes and effects. (“The EPSMS 10 may be installed and operated in any room, zone or other area which is protected by a fire or explosion control system.” (Col 5, line 23-25), disclosing a fire protection system protecting a defined zone. “The fire control panel 12 monitors fire or explosion detection equipment such as smoke detectors in a room or zone and provides a 2nd alarm signal to the EPSMS 10 upon detection of smoke, fire or an explosion by at least two of the detectors.” (Col 3, line 40-43), disclosing a fire alarm system that monitors a certain zone. “The relays 36 preferably include 2nd alarm equipment relays 36a for shutting down a first set of controlled equipment and system discharge relays 36b for shutting down a second set of controlled equipment.” (Col 4, line 15-20), disclosing different control groups. The 2nd alarm relay group (36a) and the system discharge relay group (36b) are each coupled to a distinct set of controlled equipment sets. “When the fire control panel 12 detects fire, smoke, or an explosion with at least two detectors, it generates a 2nd alarm signal and sends it to an input of the PLC 34. The PLC 34 activates the 2nd alarm indicator 44 and the 2nd alarm equipment relays 36a upon receipt of the 2nd alarm signal. The relays 36a then shut down the first set of equipment described above to prepare the protected room or zone for the imminent dispersion of fire or explosion suppression agents into the room or zone.” (Col 5, line 31-40) and “After the fire control panel 12 has completed the time delay countdown described above, it generates a system discharge signal and sends it to an input of the PLC 34. The PLC activates the system discharge indicator 46 and the system discharge relays 36b upon receipt of the system discharge signal. The relays 36b then shut down the second set of equipment described above to prevent equipment damage and shock hazards due to release of the suppression agents.” (Col 5, line 41-48), disclosing a defined set of cause (2nd alarm signal and system discharge signal from the fire control panel) and corresponding effects (activation of the respective relays groups and shutdown of their respective equipment sets). Thereby, teaching the fire alarm system with different control groups having a set of causes and effects. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ballatine’s EV charging fire detection and charger shutdown system and Krieg’s Lithium-Ion battery fire warning system with Roark’s zoned fire alarm panel having multiple control groups with defined cause and effect relay logic, to arrive at the claimed EV charging management system wherein the fire alarm system protects a certain zone and includes different control groups with causes and effects.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide structured, zone configurable fire alarm control over EV charger shutdown operation. Roark itself provides a motive stating “a system that more effectively consolidates, controls, and monitors the power off circuits for a room or other zone.” (Col 2, line 2-4). Furthermore, applying Roark’s zone-based cause and effect control group framework to Ballatine’s EV charger shutdown mechanism would yield a predictable, organized result allowing EV chargers to shut down in a configurable and auditable manner through defined control group triggers.
Regarding Claim 3, Ballatine and Krieg teach EVSE as seen above, but do not explicitly disclose the effects including turning off main lights and turning on emergency lights, sounding audible alarms, and/or unlocking doors.
However, Roark teaches the effects include turning off main lights and turning on emergency lights, sounding audible alarms, and/or unlocking doors. (“The controlled devices may include a fire/smoke damper 18, one or more electrically operated door holders 20, an exhaust fan 22, an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) 24, equipment connected to one or more shunt trip breakers 26, and an air conditioning unit 28.” (Col 3, line 28-33), disclosing the effects of the fire alarm system that includes control of electrically operated door holders (unlocking doors), a specific configured effect upon fire alarm activation. “The system includes superior monitoring capabilities with local visual and audible annunciation and internal relays which can be remotely monitored.” (Col 2, line 14-17), disclosing that the fire alarm system produces local visual indicators and audible alarms as direct effects of fire detection. Thereby teaching sounding audible alarms and turning on emergency lights (visual indicators). Additionally, “The first set of equipment may include the fire smoke dampers 18, magnetic door holders 20, exhaust fans 22, and the AC or other HVAC equipment 28.” (Col 4, line 20-23) and “The relays 36a then shut down the first set of equipment described above to prepare the protected room or zone for the imminent dispersion of fire or explosion suppression agents into the room or zone.” (Col 5, line 35-39), disclosing that the effects of the 2nd alarm control group include shutting down the HVAC and other building equipment corresponds to turning off main building equipment including lighting circuits. Thereby teaching all the effects stated in the claim. This also satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ballatine’s fire triggered EV charger shutdown system and Krieg’s Lithium-Ion battery fire warning system with Roark’s fire alarm system that produces zone specific effects including audible alarms, door holder release, and equipment shutdown including lighting, to arrive at the claimed EV charging management system wherein the fire alarm effects include turning off main lights, turning on emergency lights, sounding audible alarms, and/or unlocking doors.
The motivation for doing so would have been to implement a comprehensive fire safety response that integrates EV charger shutdown with standard building fire alarm effects. Additionally, Roark’s system is designed to “shut down specified electrically-operated equipment in a manner that best assists the suppression of a fire or explosion and protects people and assets in the protected area” (Col 2, line 11-13). Thereby, these same effects are equally valuable in an EV charging facility fire scenario.
Regarding Claim 4, Ballatine and Krieg teach EVSE as seen above, but do not explicitly disclose connecting an EVSE to a control group either through a Dry Contact or BACnet communication.
However, Roark teaches a control group that includes either through a Dry Contact (outputs from the fire alarm system, inputs into the EV charger) or BACnet communication. (“the EPSMS 10 includes one or more programmable logic controllers (PLCs) 34 or other computing devices for receiving the input signals from the fire control panel 12, EPO switch 16 or any other input signal sources; a plurality of relays 36 coupled between the outputs of the PLC and the controlled equipment for shutting down the controlled equipment;” (Col 3, line 63 – Col 4, line 2), meaning the fire alarm system’s output are connected to controlled equipment through relay based dry contact wired interfaces. Outputs from the fire alarm system (PLC output driving relays 36) connect as inputs into the controlled equipment (EVSE). Additionally, “The relays 36 may be any conventional relays such as N.O. and N.C. Cutler-Hammer C383RLDG intelligent process interface single type poles rated at 6 AMP 120 VAC.” (Col 4, line 14-16), here the N.O./N.C. replay contacts of the EPSMS constitute dry contact outputs from the fire alarm PLC. Thereby, teaching dry contact interface. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to connect Ballatine’s EV charging fire detection and shutdown system and Krieg’s Lithium-Ion battery fire warning system with Roark’s relay based dry contact wired interface between a fire alarm panel and controlled equipment.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide reliable, hardware level, fail safe interface between the fire alarm system and the EV charger that does not depend on software or network communication. Therefore, applying dry contact interface to connect the fire alarm system to the EVSE in Ballatine’s EV charging environment yields predictable, reliable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Ballatine and Krieg teach EVSE as seen above, but do not explicitly disclose connecting an EVSE to a control group through an EV charger software management system.
However, Roark teaches a control group that includes a software management system. (“the EPSMS 10 includes one or more programmable logic controllers (PLCs) 34 or other computing devices for receiving the input signals from the fire control panel 12, EPO switch 16 or any other input signal sources;” (Col 3, line 63-66), meaning the EPSMS uses computing devices and PLCs to receive and process fire alarm signals and relay them to controlled equipment. Using an EV charger software management system as the intermediary to receive fire alarm signals from the fire alarm control group and relay a shutdown command to EVSE is a software layer variant of this same concept).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to connect Ballatine’s EV charging fire detection and shutdown system and Krieg’s Lithium-Ion battery fire warning system with Roark’s computing device-based fire alarm signal processing and equipment control, and to implement the connection between the fire alarm control group and the EVSE through an EV charger software management system.
The motivation for doing so would have been to leverage existing EV charger software management infrastructure to propagate fire alarm shutdown commands to EVSE fleets across multiple locations and building, providing greater scalability and integration flexibility than hardware relay interfaces alone. As Roark states “any other input signal sources” (Col 3, line 66-67), demonstrating openness to software mediated interfaces. Thereby, routing fire alarm control group signals through an EV charger software management system is a predictable and an integration yielding the excepted benefits of centralized control.
Regarding Claim 7, Ballatine and Krieg teach EVSE as seen above, but do not teach regardless of a connection mechanism, the fire alarm system shuts down EV charges when fire is present.
However, Roark teaches regardless of a connection mechanism, the fire alarm system shuts down EV chargers when fire is present. (“The emergency power off (EPO) switch 16 may be activated to immediately disconnect power to all electrically operated equipment in the room or zone and to shut down or disconnect all power delivery equipment for the room or zone.” (Col 3, line 51-55) and “the EPSMS 10 may be coupled with various input signal sources, controlled devices, and monitoring devices for consolidating, controlling, and monitoring the shut-down of the controlled devices.” (Col 2, line 22-25), meaning EPO signal activates all relay groups simultaneously and disconnects all controlled equipment, including EV chargers, in the protected zone upon fire detection, regardless of the specific relay type, wiring configuration, or interface protocol used to connect any particular device to the EPSMS. Furthermore, multiple different connection mechanisms (Dry Contact, Modbus TCP, software management) all result in the same fire triggered shutdown output, directly teaching that the fire alarm system shuts down EV chargers when fire is present regardless of which connection mechanism is used).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ballatine’s EV charging fire detection and charger shutdown and Krieg’s Lithium-Ion battery fire warning system with Roark’s connection agnostic emergency power off (EPO) architecture, to arrive at the claimed EV charging management system wherein regardless of a connection mechanism, the fire alarm system shuts down EV chargers when fire is present.
The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the fire triggered EV charger shutdown is reliable and mechanism agnostic and that no EV charger in the protected zone remains energized during a fire event regardless of its specific connection type. As established by claim 4, 5, and 6, multiple different connection mechanisms (dry contact, Modbus TCP, and software management) all result in the same fire triggered EVSE shutdown output. Therefore, applying Roark’s connection agnostic EPO architecture to EV charger shutdown in an EV charging facility yields the predictable, expected, and necessary result of a fire alarm system that shuts down all EV chargers when fire is present, regardless of the specific connection mechanism.
Regarding Claim 8, Ballatine teaches the EV charging management system of claim 7. wherein the EV charging management system can shut down all EV chargers either in a same zone as where the fire is detected, or in an entire building or adjacent buildings or in a parking area. (“shut-down of adjacent vehicle chargers to prevent a cascade of the incident, a water spray wall between affected car and neighboring cars in order to prevent a cascade of the incident to other vehicles, a water spray wall between the vehicle and the EVCS 1004 and the modular fuel cell system enclosure 10 to prevent spread of the incident to the modular fuel cell system enclosure 10” (Col 21, line 65 – Col 22, line 4), disclosing shutdown of EV chargers in the same as zone as fire and in adjacent zones to prevent fire cascade. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
Regarding Claim 9, Ballatine and Krieg teach EVSE as seen above, but do not explicitly disclose an EVSE that includes a dry contact input to receive inputs, wherein the inputs at the dry contact input in the EVSE are programmed to allow an external electrical circuit to shut down the EVSE.
However, Roark teaches a dry contact input to receive inputs, and wherein normally the inputs at the dry contact input are programmed to allow an external electrical circuit to shut down the EVSE. (“the EPSMS 10 includes one or more programmable logic controllers (PLCs) 34 or other computing devices for receiving the input signals from the fire control panel 12, EPO switch 16 or any other input signal sources; a plurality of relays 36 coupled between the outputs of the PLC and the controlled equipment for shutting down the controlled equipment;” (Col 3 line 63 – Col 4, line 2), meaning the controlled equipment receives shutdown inputs through relay based dry contact circuits driven by the fire alarm panel. Additionally, “All relays and LEDs are labeled for their function. All labels coordinate with a wiring schematic and wiring diagram, a copy of which and sequence of operation is furnished and installed inside the enclosure.” (Col 5, line 16-19), meaning the relay contacts (dry contacts) from the EPSMS are wired to the controlled equipment's dry contact input terminals per a documented wiring sequence. The equipment is pre-programmed so that closure of this external electrical circuit (the relay output from the EPSMS) at its dry contact input causes the equipment to shut down. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ballatine’s EV charging fire detection and shutdown system and Krieg’s Lithium-Ion battery fire warning system with Roark’s teaching that controlled equipment includes pre-wired, pre-programmed relay dry contact inputs that receive external electrical shutdown signals from a fire alarm panel, to arrive at an EVSE including a dry contact input that is programmed to allow an external electrical circuit to shut down the EVSE.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a reliable, hardware level, fail safe shutdown interface at the EVSE that can be triggered directly by the fire alarm relay output without software dependency. Additionally, Roark’s dry contact relay system is designed to “shut down specified electrically-operated equipment in a manner that best assists the suppression of a fire or explosion and protects people and assets in the protected area” (Col 2, line 11-13). Thereby, equipping the EVSE with a pre-programmed dry contact input for external shutdown is a predictable, reliable, and code complaint means of integrating fire alarm control into an EV charging environment.
Regarding Claim 10, Ballatine and Krieg teach EVSE as seen above, but do not explicitly disclose a logic behind the external electrical circuit is to turn off delivery of power to the H/EV.
However, Roark teaches a logic behind the external electrical circuit is to turn off delivery of power. (“The emergency power off (EPO) switch 16 may be activated to immediately disconnect power to all electrically operated equipment in the room or zone and to shut down or disconnect all power delivery equipment for the room or zone. The EPO switch 16 also provides an EPO signal to the EPSMS 10 when activated. The EPO switch is preferably a dual action keyed latching type switch. The switch may labeled as follows: Emergency Power Shutdown This EPO switch is connected to an Emergency Power Shutdown Management System (EPSMS)” (Col 3, line 51-61), meaning the logic of the external relay based electrical circuit in the fire alarm system is to disconnect all power delivery equipment. EVSE delivers power to the H/EV).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ballatine’s EV charging fire detection and shutdown system and Krieg’s Lithium-Ion battery fire warning system with Roark’s pre-wired, pre-programmed relay dry contact inputs that receive external electrical shutdown signals from a fire alarm panel. The motivation for doing so would have been same rationale as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 12, is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 16, is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17, is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 18, is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19, is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 20, is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 10.
Claim(s) 5 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballatine and Krieg in view of Roark, and further in view of Haas.
Regarding Claim 5, Ballatine and Krieg teach EVSE and Roark teaches emergency power shutdown as seen above but, do not explicitly disclose connecting an EVSE to a control group through a Modbus TCP or Modbus RTU direct connection.
However, Haas teaches a control group that includes a Modbus TCP or Modbus RTU direct connection. (“The EVSE parent 415 is connected to the EVSE child 425(1) via a Bluetooth/Zigbee/Modbus TCP/IP connection 435 using a Bluetooth/Zigbee/Modbus TCP/IP protocol.” (Col 6, line 62-64), disclosing Modbus TCP/IP as a direct connection protocol between EVSE devices and a central controlling management system. Additionally, “The gateway 110 is configured for performing charging authorization, load management and/or demand response on an EVSE network using more than one communication channels including remote and/or local modes.” (Col 7, line 9-12), meaning Modbus TCO/IP is an implemented, proven communication channel for the EV charging management system to directly control EVSE units. Applying this Modbus TCP/IP direct connection to link the fire alarm control group to the EVSE is the extension of Haas’s taught EVSE communication protocol to a fire triggered shutdown command path. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to connect Ballatine’s fire triggered EV charger shutdown system, Krieg’s Lithium-Ion battery fire warning system and Roark’s emergency power shutdown management system with Haas’s fire alarm to EVSE connection implemented through Modbus TCP.
The motivation for doing so would have been to implement a standardized, low latency industrial communication protocol that enables direct, software configurable control of EVSE units from a central management system, including fire triggered shutdown commands. As Haas states “there is a need for a better network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure.” (Col 1, 41-43), and used Modbus TCP/IP as a proven, commercially deployed EVSE management protocol precisely because it enables centralized, multi-mode control of EVSE units over existing network infrastructure. Thereby, Modbus TCP/IP control channel, already managing charging authorization and load management, is the natural and cost-effective pathway through which a fire alarm control group would deliver a fire triggered shutdown command to the EVSE.
Regarding Claim 15, is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDNI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm, every other Friday off.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571)272-3644. 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.
/CHANDNI PATEL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights