DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on 3/19/2026. 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see page 12, filed 3/19/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 6 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument, see pages 21-22, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 4, 11 and 18 for the limitation “at least one device…” has been fully considered and is persuasive. The corresponding rejection of claims 4, 11 and 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the locations of the processor, first vehicle, and second vehicle are not ambiguous in the claims (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 9-10 and 19-20), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 discloses “A method performed by a processor at a location, the method comprising: determining a health level of a first battery in a first vehicle at a location and a second battery in a second vehicle at the location”. Both the processor and the first vehicle are explicitly recited “at a location” therefore, it is unclear if they are at the same or different locations. Because it is unclear whether the claim is directed to a single or multiple locations, all of the subsequent recitations of elements “at the location” are ambiguous because it is unclear whether they are at the location of the processor, the first vehicle, or both. Claim 8 does not limit the processor to a particular location, however, claim 8 recites the processor is configured to “determine a health level of a first battery in a first vehicle at a location and a second battery in a second vehicle at a location”. Therefore, it is similarly unclear whether the claim is directed to a single or multiple locations, and in which location the plurality of devices are located. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Ruiz only discloses controlling the supply of energy from a single battery (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 10-11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ruiz discloses, in figure 2A and paragraphs 45-46, controlling the power from a battery pack of each vehicle plugged into a residential or commercial building, and that each vehicle may be a PHEV or EV. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Ruiz does not disclose or suggest controlling multiple batteries so that a SoC of a battery providing energy to a prioritized location is given preference over other batteries (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 10-11 and 24-25), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., giving preference to a battery) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 recites controlling a supply of energy from a first battery and a second battery to a plurality of devices so that a SoC of the battery supplying energy to a device has a necessity ranking above a threshold is greater than an SoC threshold. Claim 1 does not require switching between batteries based on a SoC, nor selecting a battery based on a SoC, rather, the claim merely requires controlling the supply of energy from the battery powering the device so that its SoC remains above the threshold. Therefore, claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes merely stopping the batteries’ supply of power to the device when the batteries’ SoC reaches a value. As discussed above, Ruiz discloses powering residential loads from multiple PHEVs. Ruiz further discloses, in paragraph 97, the PHEVs are discharged until their storage capacities reach a predetermined minimum level. Ruiz further discloses, in paragraphs 56-57, the HEMS may distribute the various power sources and battery discharges to residential loads using a load priority to discharge the vehicle and stationary batteries to power only more important or critical equipment. Therefore, Ruiz discloses controlling energy supplied from multiple PHEVs such that an SoC of a battery of the PHEV supplying power to a device with a critical load priority does not fall below a predetermined minimum level. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that controlling the battery power supplied to different sets of devices inherently includes identifying which battery is supplying energy to the device in response to identifying the device ranking above the threshold (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 13-14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite an explicit step of the method of “identifying which of the first battery or the second battery is supplying energy to the device” that is triggered “in response to the device being identified as having the ranking above the threshold”. Applicant appears to argue that the smart-panel possesses general switch state knowledge which is equivalent to identifying which battery is suppling energy to the device, however, knowing the panels state before and after switching is not equivalent to performing an identifying step in response to an identifying condition. Applicant’s citations, individually discussed below, also do not inherently nor explicitly disclose a step of identifying which battery is supplying energy to the device in response to identifying its ranking is above the threshold.
Paragraphs 52-53 disclose determining a current drain for one or more devices, enabling a first connection point to pass electrical energy from the battery of the first vehicle to the devices, and in response to the determined energy consumption of the devices being above a consumption threshold, enabling a second connection point to pass electrical energy from the battery of the second vehicle to the devices. Although paragraphs 52-53 disclose individually controlling connecting the vehicles’ batteries to the devices, paragraphs 52-53 do not disclose identifying device necessity rankings, nor identifying batteries in response to the rankings.
Paragraph 60 discloses, in some embodiments, the processor may rank the necessity of a device higher than another device, and in some embodiments, the processor ensures at least one battery maintains an SoC greater than the threshold when a device is ranked above a necessity threshold. Although paragraph 60 discloses that a device ranked above a necessity threshold is a precondition for ensuring at least one of the batteries maintains an SoC greater than the threshold, paragraph 60 does not explicitly disclose identifying which battery supplies the device, nor does it inherently require identifying which battery supplies the device because the disclosed functionality would be met by maintaining both batteries above the SoC threshold. Further, none of the embodiments of paragraph 60 explicitly disclose either of the batteries providing power to the device.
Paragraph 62 discloses connecting the first battery to a first set of devices and the second battery to a second set of devices. Paragraph 62 does not disclose identifying device necessity rankings, nor identifying batteries in response to the rankings.
Paragraph 70 discloses the instant solution ranks devices based on their necessity, assesses the health and SoC of each vehicle’s battery, evaluates the energy consumption requirements of the devices, and dynamically ensures that at least one of the vehicles’ batteries maintains an SoC above a predetermined threshold when a device is identified as having a necessity above a critical threshold. Paragraph 70 provides an example of prioritizing the maintenance of a sufficient SoC in the battery of the vehicle assigned to provide energy to a dialysis machine. Paragraph 70 does not explicitly disclose the dialysis machine is the device identified as having a necessity above a critical threshold, nor that either battery actually supplies energy to the dialysis machine. Paragraph 70 further discloses when a device’s necessity ranking is high, the instant solution ensures that the vehicle battery with the healthiest state is ready to supply energy, which neither explicitly nor inherently requires identifying which battery is supplying energy to the device.
Paragraph 71 discloses determining the health levels of batteries, providing additional energy to devices with consumption above a certain threshold, executing instructions to draw energy from appropriate vehicle batteries, and switching energy supply on or off to various devices. Paragraph 71 does not disclose identifying device necessity rankings, nor identifying batteries in response to the rankings.
Paragraphs 84 and 89 additionally disclose ranking the devices based on a necessity and ensuring at least one of the first vehicle and second vehicle maintains an SoC greater than an SoC threshold when a device of the devices is ranked above the necessity threshold, however, similar to the disclosures above, although paragraphs 84 and 89 disclose that a device ranked above a necessity threshold is a precondition for ensuring at least one of the batteries maintains an SoC greater than the threshold, neither paragraph explicitly discloses identifying which battery supplies the device, nor does it inherently require identifying which battery supplies the device because the disclosed functionality would be met by maintaining both batteries above the SoC threshold. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that controlling a supply of energy from the first battery and the second battery, in response to the device identified as having the ranking above the threshold, so that a SoC of the battery supplying energy to the device is greater than a SoC threshold is enabled by the disclosure (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 14-16), it is noted that this limitation was not identified in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The Examiner agrees that the disclosure supports controlling the supply of energy in response to the device being identified as having the ranking above the threshold. However, as discussed above, controlling the supply of energy so that the battery supplying energy to the device is greater than an SoC neither explicitly nor inherently requires identifying which battery is supplying energy to the device.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the disclosure enables controlling a supply of energy from a battery to a device so that the battery’s SoC is greater than a SoC threshold and the SoC of the battery dropping below the SoC threshold because there is disclosure of individually controlling battery energy supplies and ceasing energy provision when a battery SoC falls below a threshold (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 16-19 and 22-23), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 57 discloses in some embodiments the processor can direct the smart panel to cease providing the energy or the additional energy from the highest-health battery in response to its SoC dropping below a minimum threshold. Neither claim 1 nor claim 5 disclose that the highest-health battery is the battery supplying energy to the device identified as having the ranking above the threshold. Further, claim 1 explicitly recites “controlling a supply of energy … so that a state-of-charge (SoC) of the … battery supplying energy to the device is greater than a SoC threshold”. Claim 5 explicitly recites “identifying that the SoC of the … battery supplying energy to the device has dropped below the SoC threshold”. There is no disclosure of an embodiment where a battery supplying energy to a device identified as having a ranking above a necessity threshold is controlled to be greater than an SoC threshold and falls below the SoC threshold, nor is it clear how this happens. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the phrase “controlling a supply of energy from the first battery and the second battery” is reasonably understood to mean selecting between the batteries or controlling supply from one or both batteries (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 20-21), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A supply of energy is a singular term, therefore, using it to disclose individually controlling two supplies of energy from different batteries is not proper idiomatic English. See rejection below.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 3/19/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: claim 8 should be limited to one colon, because using multiple colons in a single sentence is grammatically incorrect which makes it confusing to determine the hierarchical relationships between each limitation. 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 are 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 8-11, 9-12 and 8-11, 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 4-6, 5-6 and 5-6, 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, line 3, the limitation “a first vehicle at a location” renders the claim indefinite because the relationship between the first vehicle’s location and processor’s location recited in line 1 is unclear. 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 claims are directed to a single location.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, lines 3-4, 4-5 and 3-4, respectively, the limitation “determining a health level of a first battery … and a second battery” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether a single health level is determined for two batteries, or a health level for each battery is 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 12-13, 13 and 11-12, 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 5, 12 and 19, lines 2-3, 3-4 and 3-4, 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.
Regarding claim 8, line 5, the limitation “a second vehicle at a location” renders the claim indefinite because the relationship between the location of the first vehicle and the location of the second vehicle recited in line 4 is unclear. 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 claims are directed to a single location.
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 3-4, 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 in a first vehicle at a location and a second battery in 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 second 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 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]).
Supplemental References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 2024/0149860) disclose a system for managing the battery health of two vehicles delivering power to a building without falling below a minimum state-of-charge threshold that is set by each vehicle’s respective owner.
Conclusion
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