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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without disclosure of the functionality of the claimed “controller” in particular, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Paragraph 0009 of the Specification for the instant patent application cites that the controller is “to implement a method for prioritizing energy distribution”. Claim 1 of the instant application fails to provide any description or disclosure of how the controller prioritizes energy distribution. As claimed, claim 1 merely mentions parts of the energy distribution system and its contents without any functionality attached to those parts.
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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the at least a first green energy category" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
14. A method for prioritizing energy flow between energy storage systems comprising:
identifying a primary prioritization condition for a pending energy transfer;
identifying energy units matching the primary prioritization condition within an energy source by reading an energy meta data file corresponding to the energy source;
transferring energy units matching the primary prioritization condition in an energy transfer from the energy source to an energy destination; and
determining a response when the energy transfer is incomplete and energy units matching the primary prioritization condition are exhausted.
Step 1: The claim recites a method for prioritizing energy flow between energy storage systems. Thus, the claim is to a process which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: The claim recites “identifying a primary prioritization condition for a pending energy transfer” and “identifying energy units matching the primary prioritization condition within an energy source...”. These limitations fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because “identifying” of both limitations could practically be performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a calculator) to help them complete the identifying, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of the limitations. Further, the limitation of “transferring energy units matching the primary prioritization condition in an energy transfer from the energy source to an energy destination” also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the “transferring” could practically be performed physically by a human being. Additionally, the limitation of “determining a response when the energy transfer is incomplete and energy units matching the primary prioritization condition are exhausted” also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the “determining” can practically be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional element of “reading an energy meta data file corresponding to the energy source”. This additional element represents mere data gathering (reading the energy meta data file) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. This limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional element is mere instructions to apply to an exception and such cannot provide an inventive concept. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, the additional element is mere is instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Note: Dependent claims 15-20 are each ineligible. In regards to dependent claims 15 and 16 particularly, the “determining the response...” limitations also fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as the “determining” could practically be performed in the human mind. Dependent claims 17-20 fail to include any significant extra-solution activity and thus do not provide an inventive concept.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US PGPub 2014/0203775) in view of Paul et al. [Paul] (US PGPub 2012/0245750).
As to claim 1
Kim discloses an energy distribution system (electric vehicle energy management system, see Fig. 1) comprising:
at least a first energy storage system (energy management device 130, see Fig. 1) including a controller (control unit 133, see Fig. 1) and at least one energy storage unit (energy storage unit 134, see Fig. 1) configured to store a quantity of energy (charging energy; see paragraph 0032, line 1) (see paragraph 0032, lines 1-2), the controller including a memory (energy information storage unit 132, see Fig. 1) storing an energy meta-data file (power network state information; see paragraph 0025, lines 3-4), and wherein the energy meta-data file includes an energy type element and an energy source element.
Though Kim discloses the memory storing the energy meta-data file wherein the energy meta-data file includes energy information; Kim fails to specifically disclose the energy meta-data file including an energy type element and an energy source element.
Paul discloses an energy distribution system comprising a memory (power database 1, see Fig. 1) storing an energy meta-data file (necessary energy information; see paragraph 0029, lines 3-4) including an energy type element (DER (Distributed Energy Resource); see paragraph 0036, lines 2-3) and an energy source element (power grid; see paragraph 0036, line 2) (see paragraph 0036, lines 1-3).
Kim and Paul are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is electric vehicle charging. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim’s invention with Paul’s in order to include the type and source of energy in Kim’s power network state information. The motivation for doing so would have been determining charging energy that can be supplied to EVs waiting at a charging station (see Paul paragraph 0005, lines 1-3).
As to claim 2
Paul discloses the energy distribution system of claim 1, wherein the energy type element includes at least a first fossil fuel energy category, at least a first green fuel energy category, and an unknown type category (DER; see paragraph 0036, lines 1-3; DERs include fossil fuels and/or green energy as indicated in paragraph 0030 of Ou et al. (US PGPub 2024/0097444)).
As to claim 3
Paul discloses the energy distribution system of claim 2, wherein the at least a first green energy category includes a plurality of green energy categories (see paragraph 0036, lines 1-3).
As to claim 4
Kim discloses the energy distribution system of claim 1, wherein the quantity of energy is associated with the energy meta-data file in a fungible energy association (see paragraph 0029, lines 1-8).
As to claim 5
Kim discloses the energy distribution system of claim 1, wherein the quantity of energy is associated with the energy meta-data file in a per-unit energy association (see paragraph 0029, lines 1-8).
As to claim 12
Kim discloses the energy distribution system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to manage the energy meta-data file through a remote connection with one of a cloud service and a remote server (see paragraph 0031, lines 8-13).
As to claim 13
Kim discloses the energy distribution system of claim 1, wherein the at least the first energy storage system includes an electric vehicle energy storage system (see paragraph 0031, lines 6-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 14
Zauli discloses a method for prioritizing energy flow between energy storage systems (energy storage system; see column 8, line 27) comprising:
identifying a primary prioritization condition (specific conditions; see column 14, line 56) for a pending energy transfer (energy transfer);
identifying energy units (energy storage device; see column 4, lines 3-4) matching the primary prioritization condition within an energy source (energy source; see column 4, line 3) by reading an energy meta data file (information; see column 56, line 56) corresponding to the energy source;
transferring energy units matching the primary prioritization condition in an energy transfer (energy transfer) from the energy source to an energy destination (energy storage device; see column 4, lines 3-4) (see column 4, lines 2-7).
Thus, Zauli teaches selecting an energy source to charge an energy unit based a prioritization level of the energy source compared to other energy sources. The priority being based on one or more factors (see column 4, lines 4-7).
However, Zauli fails to specifically teach the method for prioritizing energy flow between energy storage systems further comprising determining a response when the energy transfer is incomplete and energy units matching the primary prioritization condition are exhausted.
Accordingly, independent claim 14 and the claims which depend upon it (dependent claims 15-20) are allowable over the prior art.
Claims 6-11 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:
As to claim 6
Kim and Paul disclose the energy distribution system as cited in claim 5; however, Kim and Paul fail to specifically disclose the energy distribution system wherein the memory further stores instructions for causing the controller to implement a method for prioritizing energy distribution, the method comprising:
identifying a first prioritization condition for a pending energy transfer;
transferring energy units matching the first prioritization condition in an energy transfer; and
determining a response when the energy transfer is incomplete and energy units matching the first prioritization condition are exhausted.
Zauli discloses a method for prioritizing energy flow between energy storage systems (energy storage system; see column 8, line 27) comprising:
identifying a first prioritization condition (specific conditions; see column 14, line 56) for a pending energy transfer (energy transfer); and
transferring energy units matching the first prioritization condition in an energy transfer (energy transfer) (see column 4, lines 2-7).
Thus, Zauli teaches selecting an energy source to charge an energy unit based a prioritization level of the energy source compared to other energy sources. The priority being based on one or more factors (see column 4, lines 4-7).
However, Kim, Paul, and Zauli fail to specifically teach the method for prioritizing energy flow between energy storage systems further comprising determining a response when the energy transfer is incomplete and energy units matching the primary prioritization condition are exhausted.
Accordingly, dependent claim 6 and the claims which depend upon it (dependent claims 7-11) include allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115