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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno (US 2023/0249565) in view of Liptak (US 2016/0075246).
As to claims 1 and 7, Uno discloses in figures 1-7, a power supply apparatus comprising:
an inlet [element 70] to which first AC power is input [ AC power is inputted via inlet (70)]; a bidirectional charger [charger 200] capable of performing power conversion between both AC power and DC power;
a battery that stores DC power [electrical storage device [(10)] a V2L outlet [element 80] capable of outputting second AC power [AC power is outputted by element 80] ; when the second AC power is output from the V2L [Figure 1]
Uno does not disclose explicitly, a current sensor that detects an amount of a current flowing toward the V2L outlet when the first AC power is branched and supplied to the bidirectional charger and the V2L outlet; a memory; and a hardware processor coupled to the memory, the hardware processor controlling an amount of a current flowing toward the bidirectional charger in such a manner that a total current amount of an amount of a current flowing toward the V2L outlet and an amount of a current flowing toward the bidirectional charger falls within a predetermined allowable current value.
Liptak discloses in figure 4, a current sensor [current monitoring (130) monitors current flowing through the branch circuit] that detects an amount of a current flowing toward the V2L outlet when the first AC power is branched and supplied to the bidirectional charger and the V2L outlet; a memory; and a hardware processor coupled to the memory, the hardware processor controlling an amount of a current flowing toward the bidirectional charger in such a manner that a total current amount of an amount of a current flowing toward the V2L outlet and an amount of a current flowing toward the bidirectional charger falls within a predetermined allowable current value [noted that the monitoring circuit (130) monitors the current flowing through the branch circuit and adjusts the charging I1 and I2 value to be at allowable charging current such as 15A or 20A; ; see ¶0020-0021, ¶0024 and also see figure 3, steps S306, S308 and 310].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to control and adjust the output load and charging current of Uno’s instead of suspending or stopping charging current as taught by Liptak in order to avoid battery degrade and adversely affect its lifespan.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno in view of Liptak, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0025134), hereinafter Kim.
As to Claim 2, neither Uno nor Liptak discloses, wherein the first AC power is three-phase AC power, any one of phases of the three-phase AC power is able to be branched and supplied to the V2L outlet and the bidirectional charger, and other two phases are able to be supplied to the bidirectional charger.
Kim discloses in figures 1-12, wherein the first AC power is three-phase AC power, any one of phases of the three-phase AC power is able to be branched and supplied to the V2L outlet and the bidirectional charger, and other two phases are able to be supplied to the bidirectional charger [single phase charging line among the three phase AC power line is disclosed; see also see ¶0060 and ¶0116].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to use a single phase charging in Uno’s apparatus as taught by Kim so that the power consumption of the bidirectional converter can be improved.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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:
For Claim 3: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the hardware processor increases currents of the other two phases when the currents of the other two phases are less than a predetermined allowable current value, and reduces, by an increased amount of the currents, the current supplied to the bidirectional charger in the one phase.
For Claim 4: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein when a required power amount of the bidirectional charger is able to be covered by the other two phases, the hardware processor sets a current supplied to the bidirectional charger in the one phase to 0.
For Claim 5: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the hardware processor sets a sum of amounts of currents branched and supplied to the V2L outlet and the bidirectional charger in the one phase and each of amounts of currents of the other two phases to be equal to each other.
For Claim 6: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein when the current starts flowing toward the V2L outlet in the one phase, the hardware processor once sets the current flowing toward the bidirectional charger to 0 and then gradually increases the current to an original value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aragai et al. (US 2012/0235472) discloses power source control device and method, a and power management system.
Kim et al. (US 2023/0179003) discloses electronic device comprising a plurality of batteries and method for protecting the batteries in the same.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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, Julian A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights