DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on 9/15/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that Higashi in view of Zhang does not disclose the amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15 (applicant's response, pp. 21-22), it is noted that this argument is moot in view of the new ground of rejection over Higashi in view of Ruiz. See rejection below.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 9/15/2025 are acceptable.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on 9/15/2025.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 3, line 1, “comprising a process” should read “comprising a processor”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 114, lines 3-4, “The flow rate electricity” should read “the flow rate of electricity”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15 and 17 should each be limited to a single colon, because using multiple colons in a sentence to form nested lists is grammatically incorrect, and makes it confusing to determine the relationships between limitations.
In claims 5, 12 and 19, lines 7, 8 and 9, respectively, “supplying energy from to the other one” should read “supplying energy from the other one”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claims 6 and 13, lines 5-6, “is not a battery having a greatest health level” should read “is not the battery having the greatest health level” to make it clear that the batteries and health levels are the same batteries and health levels recited in claim 1, lines 3-4, claim 8, lines 5-6.
In claim 9, lines 3 and 5, “control a supply energy” should read “control a supply of energy”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 12, lines 9-12, it appears that the limitation “ceases the provides the energy or the provides the additional energy from the highest-health battery in response to a state-of-charge of the highest-health battery drops below a minimum state-of-charge threshold” should be removed from the claim similar to claims 5 and 19. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 14, lines 5-8, “the first battery and the second battery an equal SoC” should read “the first battery and the second battery approach an equal SoC”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 15, line 5, “at the location” should read “at a location”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, lines 11-14, 13-16 and 12-15, respectively, the limitation “in response to the device being identified … identify[ing] which of the first battery or the second battery is supplying energy to the device” does not appear to be enabled in the specification. Paragraphs 64 and 70 disclose identifying critical devices that require uninterrupted power, then dynamically allocating power to them. Paragraph 57 further discloses identifying a highest-health battery, then directing the smart panel to cease providing energy from it. There does not appear to be disclosure of an explicit step of identifying which battery is supplying energy to a specific device, or performing this step in response to identifying the device as having a ranking above a necessity threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the specification of the invention provides support for the claims and would not be able to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, lines 6-8, 7-9 and 8-10, respectively, the limitation “in response to the SoC being identified as dropping below the SoC threshold, [control the ] supply[ing] [of] energy from the other [battery]” does not appear to be enabled in the specification. Paragraph 72 discloses when the highest-health battery’s SoC approaches a minimum threshold, the energy provision responsibility is switched to the other battery. There does not appear to be disclosure of controlling the supply of energy from the batteries, as recited in the independent claims, other than by switching between them, therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 must include switching between the batteries, when the battery supplying energy to the identified device approaches a minimum SoC threshold, thereby preventing the initial battery from reaching the threshold. Allowing said initial battery to continue powering the device, causing it to drop below the SoC threshold, does not appear to be enabled in the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the specification of the invention provides support for the claims and would not be able to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 1-2, the limitation “[a] method performed by a processor at a location” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the processor is required to be at the same location that the method is performed. Figure 1A discloses vehicles connected to a processor 139 which is located in a location 108, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the processor is at a location the method is performed.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, lines 3-4, 5-7, and 4-5, respectively, the limitation “determin[e/ing] a health level of a first battery of a first vehicle and a second battery of a second vehicle at [a/the] location” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if only the second vehicle is at the location, both vehicles are at the location, or the health level is merely determined at the location. Figure 1A discloses both vehicles are connected to processor 139 which is located in location 108, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the processor is at a location and both vehicles are connected to the processor.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, lines 2-3, 5-6 and 4-5, respectively, the limitation “determining a health level of a first battery and a second battery” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether one or two health levels are determined. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to determining a first health level of the battery of the first vehicle, and a second health level of the battery of the second vehicle.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, lines 19-20, 17-18 and 19-20, respectively, the limitation “controlling a supply of energy from the first battery and the second battery” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether a supply of energy from each battery is controlled, or the energy from both batteries are combined into a supply of energy that is controlled. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that a supply of energy is controlled from at least one of the batteries.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, lines 3-4, 4-5 and 5-6, respectively, the limitation “at least one device from the plurality of devices that has an energy consumption above a threshold” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the device with an energy consumption above a threshold is the same device that has a ranking above a threshold that is identified in claim 1, lines 9-10, claim 8, lines 11-12, and claim 15, lines 10-11. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the dependent claims are directed to controlling the power supplied to the same device identified in their respective parent claims.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, lines 4, 5 and 6, respectively, the limitation “above a threshold” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the threshold is the device threshold recited in claim 1, line 10, claim 8, line 12, and claim 15, line 11. Claims 1, 8 and 15 appear to be directed to a necessity ranking threshold, whereas claims 4, 11 and 18 appear to be directed an energy consumption threshold. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the independent claims are directed to a first threshold that is a necessity ranking threshold, and the dependent claims are directed to a second threshold that is an energy consumption threshold.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, lines 2-3, 3-4 and 4-5, respectively, the limitation “identifying that the SoC of the [battery] supplying energy to the device has dropped below the SoC threshold” renders the claim indefinite because, in claims 1, 8 and 15, the battery supplying energy to the device is controlled such that its SoC is greater than the SoC threshold. It is unclear how the battery’s SoC can fall below the threshold that it is being controlled to remain above. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that a battery with a SoC above the threshold is selected to initially power the device, and before its SoC drops below the threshold, the device power is supplied by a different battery.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 5, 12 and 19, lines 2-3, 3-4 and 4-5, respectively, disclose identifying that the SoC of the battery supplying energy to the device has dropped below the SoC threshold, however, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 disclose controlling the supply of energy to the device such that the SoC of the battery remains greater than the SoC threshold. Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 do not appear to include the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 because if the SoC of the battery is controlled to remain above a threshold, than the SoC of the battery cannot also be below the threshold, therefore, the claims are improperly dependent.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi (US 2015/0255984) in view Ruiz et al. (US 2011/0204720), hereinafter Ruiz.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, as best understood, Higashi discloses a system, comprising: a processor that executes instructions stored in a memory to configure the processor (Higashi; para. 16: The vehicle-to-grid controller 120 can be implemented in the form of a system that includes a processor that is operable to execute instructions that are stored on a computer readable storage device, such as RAM, ROM, a solid state memory device, or a disk drive) to: determine a health level of a first battery of a first vehicle and second battery of a second vehicle (Higashi; para. 20: Each charging station 130 is operable to determine a state-of-health for the battery of the respective vehicle to which it is connected.) at a location (Higashi; para. 15: The plurality of charging stations 130 is also referred to herein as a group of vehicle charging stations. The charging stations 130 need not be at a common geographical location, but rather can be at multiple locations [i.e., the vehicle charging station are, by default, at a common geographical location].); determine an energy consumption of a plurality of devices at the location (Higashi; para. 23: The requested power supply value is an amount of power to be returned to the grid by the vehicle-to-grid system 100. The requested power supply value can be determined by the third-party system based on, for example a current demand for electrical power on the power grid 110 and the maximum power supply value.); and control a supply of energy from the first battery and the second battery to the plurality of devices (Higashi; para. 24: The vehicle-to-grid controller 120 can transmit instructions to each of the charging stations 130. The instructions, when processed by each of the charging stations 130, cause each of the respective vehicles 140a-140d to supply electrical power to the power grid.).
Higashi does not explicitly disclose identifying a device from the plurality of devices that has a ranking above a threshold based on a necessity of the device; and in response to the device being identified as having the ranking above the threshold, the processor is further configured to: identify which of the first battery or the second battery is supplying energy to the device, and control a supply of energy from the first battery and the second battery to the plurality of devices so that a state-of-charge (SoC) of the one of the first battery or the second battery supplying energy to the device is greater than a SoC threshold.
Ruiz, in the same field of endeavor (energy demand management), discloses identifying a device from a plurality of devices that has a ranking above a threshold based on a necessity of the device (Ruiz; para. 52: HEMS 26 may include load priorities for various appliances throughout residential building. HEMS 26 may include preset and user selectable load priorities in the event of high demand, high real time pricing (RTP) of energy, power outages, and user schedules. For example, the load priority may include a high priority for refrigerators, freezers, security systems, and other important equipment); and in response to the device being identified as having the ranking above the threshold, a processor is configured to: identify which of a first battery or a second battery is supplying energy to the device (Ruiz; para. 68: vehicle/PHEV battery selection 160 may enable control of charging and discharging of vehicle batteries 38 (FIG. 1B), assignment of loads to use energy from vehicle batteries … Stationary batteries selection 162 may enable control of charging and discharging of stationary batteries 46 (FIG. 1B), assignment of loads to stationary batteries), and control a supply of energy from the first battery and the second battery to the plurality of devices (Ruiz; para. 56: HEMS 26 may use a load priority to discharge vehicle and stationary batteries 38 and 46 to power only more important or critical equipment, such as freezers, refrigerators, and security systems) so that a state-of-charge (SoC) of the one of the first battery or the second battery supplying energy to the device is greater than a SoC threshold (Ruiz; para. 64: HEMS 26 and VCS 34 also may provide different backup periods and minimum charge levels for vehicle battery 38. For example, HEMS 26 may enable a complete discharge of vehicle battery 38, whereas VCS 34 may enable only a partial discharge of vehicle battery 38.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the vehicle-to-grid controller of Higashi to control the individual supplies of energy from multiple vehicles to user-prioritized loads such that at least one vehicle’s battery is not reduced below a minimum charge level, as disclosed by Ruiz, with the motivation of adjusting the system to user preferences of energy conservation, comfort levels, energy needs, work schedules, travel schedules, and other factors thereby optimizing the usage of the energy sources for loads within residential building (Ruiz; para. 49).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, as best understood, Higashi, as modified, discloses supplying energy from the first battery to the plurality of devices; and supplying energy from the second battery to the plurality of devices (Higashi; para. 24: The vehicle-to-grid controller 120 can transmit instructions to each of the charging stations 130. The instructions, when processed by each of the charging stations 130, cause each of the respective vehicles 140a-140d to supply electrical power to the power grid.).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, as best understood, Higashi, as modified, discloses supplying the energy from the first battery to a first subset of the plurality of devices located in a first portion of the location, and supplying the additional energy from the second battery to a second subset of the plurality of devices located in a second portion of the location (Ruiz; para. 68: vehicle/PHEV battery selection 160 may enable control of charging and discharging of vehicle batteries 38 (FIG. 1B), assignment of loads to use energy from vehicle batteries … Stationary batteries selection 162 may enable control of charging and discharging of stationary batteries 46 (FIG. 1B), assignment of loads to stationary batteries), wherein the second subset and the second portion are different than the first subset and the first portion, respectively (Ruiz; para. 63: HEMS 26 may be configured to rely on vehicle and stationary batteries 38 and 46 for backup power to refrigerators/freezers 104, lighting 106, televisions 108, heating and air conditioning, and other appliances throughout residential building).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, as best understood, Higashi, as modified, discloses supplying the energy and the additional energy to at least one device from the plurality of devices that has an energy consumption above a threshold (Ruiz; para. 56: HEMS 26 may use a load priority to discharge vehicle and stationary batteries 38 and 46 to power only more important or critical equipment, such as freezers, refrigerators, and security systems) within a set of peak hours for an electrical grid; and ceasing at least one of the providing of the energy or the providing of the additional energy outside the set of peak hours for the electrical grid (Ruiz; para. 56: FIG. 2A is a schematic of an exemplary embodiment of residential building 28 having HEMS 26, showing an electrical demand response during a period of peak demand; (e.g., midday) on electrical power grid 40. In the exemplary embodiment, HEMS 26 may use local energy sources rather than power grid 40 to run lighting, appliances, and equipment throughout residential building 28 during the period of peak demand. For example, HEMS 26 may use energy from vehicle and stationary batteries 38 and 46, solar panels 50, and wind turbines 54 to power at least some or all loads throughout residential building 28.).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, as best understood, Higashi, as modified, discloses identifying that the SoC of the one of the first battery or the second battery supplying energy to the device has dropped below the SoC threshold; and in response to the SoC being identified as dropping below the SoC threshold (Ruiz; para. 64: HEMS 26 and VCS 34 also may provide different backup periods and minimum charge levels for vehicle battery 38. For example, HEMS 26 may enable a complete discharge of vehicle battery 38, whereas VCS 34 may enable only a partial discharge of vehicle battery 38.), supplying energy from to the other one of the first battery or the second battery to the device (Ruiz; para. 75: If stationary battery power 216 [or, as modified, one of the vehicle batteries] is insufficient to meet the demands of home loads 204, then electricity manager 210 may control 248 residential power distribution system 200 to use vehicle battery power 218 as a supplement to power home loads 204 as a third priority.).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, as best understood, Higashi, as modified, discloses controlling the supply of energy so that the one of the first battery or the second battery supplying energy to the device is not a battery having a greatest health level (Higashi; para. 24: a vehicle having a lowest state of health among the group of vehicles 14a-140d would be requested to supply a smallest respective portion of the requested power supply value).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, as best understood, Higashi, as modified, discloses detecting a power outage of an electrical grid; and in response to the power outage being detected, controlling the supply of the energy (Ruiz; para. 63: a storm 130 produces a lightning strike 132, which causes an interruption 134 in power grid 40 leading to residential building 28. As a result of interruption 134, HEMS 26 may distribute local power in an order of priority … HEMS 26 may automatically turn to batteries 38 and/or 46 at the time of the interruption) so that the SoC of the first battery and the second battery approach an equal SoC (Ruiz; para. 64: HEMS 26 and VCS 34 also may provide different backup periods and minimum charge levels for vehicle battery 38. For example, HEMS 26 may enable a complete discharge of vehicle battery 38, whereas VCS 34 may enable only a partial discharge of vehicle battery 38 [i.e., multiple vehicles may be set to the same minimum discharge value]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights