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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quattrini Jr. et al, US Pub. 2018/000178, in view of Bouman, WO 2011/145939.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Quattrini Jr. et al disclose a dynamic of power modules for charging electric vehicles comprising: an EV charging system having multiple EV charging dispensers 150A and 150B (par. 0016); each dispenser includes local power modules, the dispenser 150A includes modules 115A–B and dispenser 150B includes modules 115C–D; the first EV charging station including a first EV charger and at least one power bank associated with the first EV charger, because modules 115A–B are physically included in and locally associated with dispenser 150A, while modules 115C–D are locally associated with dispenser 150B (Fig. 1B, 2; par. 0016-0020); the modules 115A–B and 115C–D can each be switchably connected to power buses 140A or 140B and thereby selectively allocated to either charging dispenser; different EVs may request different amounts of power, and the requested amount can be transmitted by the EV or determined from the vehicle make/model; the dispenser determines the power available by obtaining the status of local modules 115A–B and remote modules 115C–D; the dispenser compares the available charging power against the requested or determined power (Fig. 4, par. 0052+); the dispenser determines whether available power is sufficient to satisfy the requested/determined power draw and selects only modules having an available status (see Figs. 1-4).
Quattrini Jr. et al fail to disclose an electrical contractor matrix associated with the first EV charger and selectively coupling the first EV charger to the at least one power bank associated with the first EV charger and to at least one other power source.
Bouman discloses a charging system for electric vehicles comprising: a switchable connection matrix connecting one or more power converters to charging ports, controlled by the charging controller; figure 7 shows the switched connection matrix between the plurality of power converters and the charging ports and figure 8provides a detailed implementation in which closing switches connects one or more converters to a charging port. (See Figs. 7, 8, 10; page 11, 22 to page 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement switchable allocation arrangement of Quattrini Jr. et al using the connection-matrix architecture of Bouman to selectively connect available modular DC charging resources to charging ports according to charging demand. Such modification would effectively connect charging power. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Quattrini Jr. et al disclose both local modules and modules remotely located in another dispenser; modules 115A–B are local to dispenser 150A, whereas modules 115C–D are located in dispenser 150B but can supply dispenser 150A. ( See Figs. 1B and 2). Quattrini et al in view of Bouman render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Quattrini Jr. et al recognize EVSE power conversion electronics housed either in the dispenser or in a separate power cabinet (see the background, par. 0003), and teach remotely located modules supplying another dispenser (see Fig. 1B and 2). Quattrini et al in view of Bouman render the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Quattrini Jr. et al teach dispensers having one or more power modules and expressly states that the illustrated two-module arrangement is exemplary and that each dispenser may contain fewer or more modules and similarly Bouman teaches allocating multiple power modules to the same charging port according to requested power. Quattrini et al in view of Bouman render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Quattrini Jr. et al disclose dispensers 150A and 150B, respectively containing modules 115A–B and 115C–D, while permitting those modules to supply either dispenser (Fig. 2). Quattrini et al in view of Bouman render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Quattrini Jr. et al disclose dispenser 150A requesting the status of remote modules 115C–D from dispenser 150B; the PCU of dispenser 150B queries those modules and returns their status; sending commands to another dispenser to cause remote modules to be switchably connected or disconnected. Quattrini et al in view of Bouman render the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 7-8, QuattriniJr. Et al disclose that although the examples illustrate two dispensers, more dispensers may participate in dynamic allocation, expanding from two dispensers to three or four would have been a predictable duplication of the disclosed modular architecture to increase charging capacity. Quattrini et al in view of Bouman render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Quattrini Jr. et al determine modules that are available from modules already allocated to another dispenser; then the controller selects modules having an available status and does not select modules currently allocated elsewhere; obtaining the status of remote modules and transmitting commands among participating dispensers. It would have been obvious to apply the disclosed availability-selection algorithm to the expressly contemplated system having more than two dispensers would predictably result in bypassing an unavailable module and selecting an available module at another dispenser. Quattrini et al in view of Bouman render the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Quattrini Jr. Et al disclose checking the status of local modules; for dispenser 150A, it accesses the status of modules 115A–B locally while requesting the status of remote modules 115C–D. Quattrini et al in view of Bouman render the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 20, Bouman discloses assigning a priority to charging ports and distributing power modules according to that priority and requested power; the highest-priority vehicle receives sufficient modules to satisfy its demand, with remaining modules assigned to other ports according to their priority and similarly Quattrini Jr. et al disclose selection according to operating time and numerous priority criteria, including charging duration, state of charge, battery temperature, vehicle type and reservation status. It would have been obvious to represent the disclosed priority hierarchy as an ordered list because an ordered list is a conventional data structure for implementing sequential priority selection and would predictably permit the controller to evaluate resources according to the disclosed priority. Quattrini et al in view of Bouman render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Quattrini Jr. et al disclose maintaining and using EV information including, current draw, percentage charge complete, percentage charge remaining, battery temperature, and vehicle type; those parameters are used in determining dynamic power-module allocation; providing EVs having different maximum power capabilities, such as EV 170A at 125 kW and EV 170B at 90 kW, and allocating modules according to the vehicle's power capability; determining the desired power from vehicle make/model or receiving requested power directly from the EV. Quattrini et al in view of Bouman render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Quattrini Jr. et al disclose physically associates local modules with their respective dispenser and teaches dynamic allocation using priority criteria and Bouman teaches assigning priority among charging ports and allocating power modules according to that priority. It would have been obvious to provide the locally associated charger priority to its local modules would have been an obvious allocation policy because it preserves local charging capacity while permitting otherwise-unused modules to be shared, consistent with the dynamic allocation objectives of the references. Quattrini et al in view of Bouman render the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 17, the limitations have been met in the rejection of claims 5-6 above.
Regarding claims 18, the limitations have been met in the rejection of claims 7-9 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prosser et al, US Pub. 2012/0013299, disclose a controller for a modular system for charging electrical vehicles. Ballatine et al, US Pub. 2012/0326668, disclose an electrical vehicle charging using fuel cell system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Pham Thomas can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
