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 .
Prelim. Amdt./Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the Preliminary Amendment filed on January 10, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 83-86, 88-93, 95-96, and 100-102 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scherer (US 2018/0281606, cited by the applicant).
Re claim 83: Scherer teaches a system comprising one or more adapters (9, paragraph 0038); a first entity (4); a second entity (5); and a host smart charge receiver (2) that comprises a processor storing instructions in non-transitory memory that, when executed, causes the processor to determine presence of the one or more adapters electrically coupled to a host vehicle (5’)(i.e., the computer (2) receiving demand signal (S1, S2, S3) from a motor vehicle (5’)) and; recognize at least one of the first entity (4) and the second entity (5) that are electrically coupled to the host vehicle through the one or more adapters; establish a connection between the host vehicle, the first entity, and the second entity (fig. 2); communicate a command to one of the first entity and the second entity to function as an extension charger based on a first charge and a second charge received from the first entity and the second entity, respectively (i.e., receiving supplying signals (S1)); and provide an optimal charge to one or more first battery packs of the host vehicle by providing at least one of the first charge and the second charge (i.e., transferring an energy to the moto vehicle (5’) (P6) based on an evaluation value by an optimization method (see figs. 1-4; paragraphs 0035-0039).
Re claim 84: Wherein the first entity (4) comprises a vehicle (fig, 2).
Re claim 85: Wherein the second entity (5) comprises a vehicle (fig. 2).
Re claim 86: Wherein the first entity and the second entity are similar entities (fig. 2).
Re claim 88: Wherein the one or more adapters are extended by electrically coupling one or more subsequent adapters to receive input power from a subsequent entity (i.e., the supplier vehicle (4) can be acts as an intermediate connection for transferring energy between the supply vehicle (5) and the receiving vehicle (5’)).
Re claim 89: Wherein the host smart charge receiver comprises an artificial intelligence engine (i.e., an optimization method serving as an artificial intelligence engine for selecting combinations (P4) making possible a choice of the combinations for a maximum evaluation value of the total system, paragraph 0036).
Re claim 90: Wherein the processor is operable to determine a charging requirement of the host vehicle based on an itinerary and a traffic condition of the host vehicle such as a geographic meeting place and meeting time with the combination partner, a path, a speed at which to travel (paragraph 0036).
Re claim 91. Wherein the system further comprises a sensor module (i.e., a current state of charge included in the supply/demand signals generated by a sensor module (not particularly disclosed, claim 5).
Re claim 92: Wherein the second entity (5) is coupled to the host vehicle (5’) through the first entity (4)(fig. 2).
Re claim 93: Wherein the first entity (4) disconnects the first charge (i.e., transferring energy from the initial supplier (1) to a supply vehicle (4) (L3a)) and provides the second charge to the host vehicle (i.e., transferring energy from the supply vehicle (4) to the vehicle (5) (L3b) (fig. 2; paragraph 0037).
Re claim 95: Wherein the connection between the host vehicle, the first entity, and the second entity is a daisy chain connection (i.e., when the intermediate connection is selected as shown in fig. 2).
Re claim 96: Scherer teaches a method comprising determining presence of one or more adapters electrically coupled to a host vehicle (5’) (i.e., the computer (2) receiving demand signal (S1, S2, S3) from a motor vehicle (5’)); recognizing at least one of a first entity (4) and a second entity (5) that are electrically coupled to the host vehicle through the one or more adapters; establishing a connection between the host vehicle, the first entity, and the second entity (fig. 2); communicating a command to one of the first entity and the second entity to function as an extension charger based on a first charge and a second charge received from the first entity and the second entity, respectively (i.e., receiving supplying signals (S1)); and providing an optimal charge to one or more first battery packs of the host vehicle by providing at least one of the first charge and the second charge (i.e., transferring an energy to the moto vehicle (5’) (P6) based on an evaluation value by an optimization method (see figs. 1-4; paragraphs 0035-0039).
Re claim 100: Scherer teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a sequence of instructions, which when executed by a processor causes determining presence of one or more adapters electrically coupled to a host vehicle (5’) (i.e., the computer (2) receiving demand signal (S1, S2, S3) from a motor vehicle (5’)); recognizing at least one of a first entity (4) and a second entity (5) that are electrically coupled to the host vehicle through the one or more adapters; establishing a connection between the host vehicle, the first entity, and the second entity (fig. 2); communicating a command to one of the first entity and the second entity to function as an extension charger based on a first charge and a second charge received from the first entity and the second entity, respectively (i.e., receiving supplying signals (S1)); and providing an optimal charge to one or more first battery packs of the host vehicle by providing at least one of the first charge and the second charge (i.e., transferring an energy to the moto vehicle (5’) (P6) based on an evaluation value by an optimization method (see figs. 1-4; paragraphs 0035-0039).
Re claim 101: The non-transitory computer readable medium further causes: determining a charging requirement of the host vehicle based on a third sensory information received from a sensor module (i.e., a current state of charge included in the supply/demand signals generated by a sensor module (not particularly disclosed, claim 5).
Re claim 102: The non-transitory computer readable medium further causes a state-of- charge (SoC) (claim 5).
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) 87 and 94 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherer in view of Salter et al. (US 2023/0038656).
The teachings of Scherer have been discussed above.
Although, Scherer teaches the system for coordinating charging of the vehicles, he fairly suggests that the first entity and second entity are dissimilar entitles and the second charge is added to the first charge.
However, Salter teaches a system (10) for charging a vehicle (18A) serving as host vehicle wherein an energy is transferred from a charge source (12) serving as a first entity and a donor vehicle (16) serving as a second entity and each vehicle can be charged vehicle can be charged according to the target charging configuration (see figs. 1, 6; paragraphs 0038-0041, 0073-0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Salter to the teachings of Scherer in order to charge the vehicles according to user/owners desired schedule and charging target.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 97-99 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:
None of prior art teaches the method comprising receiving simultaneously the first charge and the second charge from the first entity, and the second entity respectively through the one or more adapters as set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vaghefinazari (US 2016/0193932) and Atluri et al. (US 2022/0097540) teach apparatus for charging vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEUNG H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2401. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:00PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/SEUNG H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights