DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, the metes and bounds of “vehicle”, “a vehicle”, “a plurality of vehicles”, and “vehicles” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of each other? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the metes and bounds of “the vehicles” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the metes and bounds of “vehicles” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and is rejected based on its dependency thereto.
Regarding claim 5, the metes and bounds of “vehicles” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the metes and bounds of “vehicles” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the metes and bounds of “one or more vehicles” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, the metes and bounds of “vehicles” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, the metes and bounds of “the vehicle” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the metes and bounds of “the vehicle” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the metes and bounds of “the vehicle” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 12, the metes and bounds of “the vehicle” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, the metes and bounds of “the vehicle” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the metes and bounds of “the vehicle” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15, the metes and bounds of “the vehicle” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and is rejected based on its dependency thereto.
Regarding claim 17, the metes and bounds of “vehicles” and “the plurality of vehicles’ are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 18, the metes and bounds of “the plurality of vehicles” and “vehicles” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of the vehicles in claim 1? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 19, the metes and bounds of “each vehicle”, “vehicle”, “a plurality of vehicles”, “a vehicle”, and “vehicles” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of each other? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, the metes and bounds of “each vehicle”, “vehicle”, “a plurality of vehicles”, “a vehicle”, and “vehicles” are unclear. Are the vehicles the same or different or a subset of each other? Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance with respect to the prior art:
Claims 1-18
Regarding claim 1, the prior art as described in the prosecution history describes:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0009372 (Bhargava) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0245750 (Paul).
The cited prior art describes a charging management system comprising: (Bhargava: “The following presents techniques for scheduling the charging of electric vehicles (EVs) that protect the resources of local low voltage distribution networks.” Paragraph 0018; “FIG. 6 is a high-level representation of some of the elements that can go into one embodiment for the optimizing of the charging of EVs over distribution networks.” Paragraph 0033)
a transceiver configured to receive vehicle inputs associated with a plurality of vehicles located in a geographical area; and (Bhargava: see the load manager 605 as illustrated in figure 6; see the residences 123 and EVs 125 as illustrated in figures 2, 6; “At step 1105, the load manager 605 retrieves relevant EV telematics data and EV use inputs for the associated EVs. The EV telematics data are information that can be transmitted from onboard computers of the on-board control systems 615 of an EV 125 to a cloud computing service, for example, either directly to load manager 605 or by way of OEM 603. The EV telematics data can include information such as location, charging status, battery state of charge, voltage, current, power, as well as historical data or composite data, such as energy added over a charging session.” Paragraph 0081)
a processor communicatively coupled with the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to: (Bhargava: see the microprocessor 1510 and network interface 1550 as illustrated in figure 15 and as described in paragraph 0098)
estimate a probability of vehicle charging at a charging station located in the geographical area for vehicles of the plurality of vehicles based on the vehicle inputs; (Bhargava: “At step 1111, the load manager 605 updates the expected EV charging energy needs, arrival and departure times from the EV telematics data and EV user inputs, followed by formulating optimization cost and constraints, and generates an asset-protective joint EV charging schedule.” Paragraph 0083; “The EV portion of load modeling and forecasting can be provided by the telematics data from the EVs' on-board control systems. Examples of this data can include, for each EV, the daily driving behavior, daily charging demand, plug-in frequency, and arrival and departure times. This data allows the load manager to forecast the charging demand for each EV, such as the amount of charging that the EV will likely require and when this can be done.” Paragraph 0071)
estimate a count of vehicles, from the plurality of vehicles, having respective probabilities of vehicle charging at the charging station greater than a predefined probability threshold; and (Paul: see the predicted number of EVs at each time as illustrated in figure 3; “The scheduling module 6 (scheduling unit) calculates the number of EVs that will arrive in the next time range based on the EV charging prediction data 3, calculates the charging energy that can be supplied to the waiting electric vehicles and generates a charging schedule for the waiting EVs by distributing available power.” paragraph 0038) (Bhargava: “In step 1113 the load manager formulates optimization costs and constraints, and generates asset-protective joint EV charging schedules. The optimization parameters and constraints depend on the embodiment and can include: cost, power rating of the asset, clean energy level percentages, customer battery levels needs, starting battery levels, power of charging, among other parameters. The weighting and integration of these parameters sets the constraints and cost function.” Paragraph 0083)
However, regarding claim 1, the prior art as described in the prosecution history does not describe:
cause the charging station to operate in a charge limit operational mode when the count of vehicles exceeds a predefined estimated count threshold, wherein the charging station is configured to limit an amount of charge transferred to a vehicle when the charging station operates in the charge limit operational mode.
Dependent claims 2-18 depend from independent claim 1 and are allowable for the same reasons as described above.
Claim 19
Independent claim 19 is substantially similar to independent claim 1 and is allowable for the same reasons as outlined above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 20
Independent claim 20 is substantially similar to independent claim 1 and is allowable for the same reasons as outlined above with respect to claim 1.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0185274 describes identifying optimal EV charging station locations.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0065749 describes optimizing charging operations of electric vehicle charging stations.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0101097 describes cluster forecasting of electric vehicle charging load.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0253531 describes optimal load planning of electric vehicle charging.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0172129 describes charging queue management of electric vehicle charging stations.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0091291 describes power grid load management for plug in vehicles.
X. Zhang, K. W. Chan, H. Li, H. Wang, J. Qiu and G. Wang, "Deep-Learning-Based Probabilistic Forecasting of Electric Vehicle Charging Load With a Novel Queuing Model," in IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 3157-3170, June 2021 describes deep learning based probabilistic forecasting of electric vehicle charging load.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights