DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 9 December 2025. Claims 1-15 and 21-24 are pending.
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
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) 1-4, 6-10, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wolfe (WO 2022/241267) in view of Galin (US 2018/0201142).
Regarding claim 1, Wolfe discloses a charging network comprising: a charging system configured to be electrically coupled with a power source (Fig. 1; ¶3), the charging system comprising: a grid interconnect configured to operably couple with a power grid, a battery energy storage system electrically coupled with the grid interconnect, and a charging station remote from the grid interconnect and battery energy storage system, the charging station electrically coupled with the grid interconnect through a first connection line and the battery energy storage system through a second connection line (Figs. 1 and 2, electric vehicle chargers/charging stations connected to electrical grid and energy storage systems through multiple connection lines, the energy storage systems also electrically coupled to the grid), the first connection line is separated from the second connection line (Fig. 2, line from 280 or from 211 are separate from line from 230 to 210), the charging station further comprising:
a power distribution assembly configured to convert an alternating current (AC) to a direct current (DC) downstream of the first connection line and the second connection line (¶56); and
an electric resource connection line configured to transfer power from the charging station to an electric resource, wherein a supplemented power load including a first amount of alternating current (AC) power transferred through the first connection line and a second amount of direct current (DC) power from the battery energy storage system through the second connection line are transferred from the charging station through the electric resource connection line, wherein the supplemented power load exceeds the defined power value of the grid interconnect with AC power from the grid and DC power from the battery energy storage system (¶¶34, 37, 50, 58, 67).
a computing system operably coupled with the battery energy storage system and the charging station in parallel (Fig. 1), the computing system including a processor and associated memory, the memory storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, configure the computing system (Fig. 10, ¶40) to: determine a requested power load by the charging station at a defined time (Fig. 4; ¶73), determine a defined power value of the grid interconnect (Fig. 3; ¶¶34, 67, grid connection limit), determine one or more charging parameters based at least in part on the requested power load by the charging station at the defined time and the defined power value of the grid interconnect, and an expected power load over a defined period (¶¶46, 60, 73-74); and generate one or more commands for the battery energy storage system or the charging station to provide a power load based on the one or more charging parameters (¶¶46, 60, 73-74).
Wolfe does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first connection line is separated from the second connection line at the charging station. Galin discloses a charging station remote from the grid interconnect and battery energy storage system, the charging station electrically coupled with the grid interconnect through a first connection line and the battery energy storage system through a second connection line, the first connection line is separated from the second connection line at the charging station (Fig. 1A, 111/113 and 101/106 connected to 102 through different lines; Fig. 7, 704/705 and 701/713 connected to 702 through different lines); the charging station further comprising: an electric resource connection line configured to transfer power from the charging station to an electric resource, wherein a combined power load including a first amount of AC power transferred through the first connection line and a second amount of DC power from the battery energy storage system through the second connection line are transferred from the charging station through the electric resource connection line (Fig. 2, merger 218 combining AC and DC power on output line 260 to electric resource; Fig. 7; ¶¶85, 132, 133), wherein the supplemented power load exceeds the defined power value of the grid interconnect with AC power from the grid and DC power from the battery energy storage system (Fig. 8, blocks 823, 829, 830; ¶¶133, 137).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Wolfe and Galin, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving management of power flow from grid and battery supply to a charger through independent connections from the grid and battery. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Wolfe discloses a charger that receives power from both the grid and a battery and provides power to loads (EVs). Galin teaches that the grid and battery should be connected to the charger through separate lines to allow multiple configurable power paths from different sources to loads. The teachings of Galin are directly applicable to Wolfe in the same way, so that Wolfe’s system would similarly connect chargers to the grid and to the batteries using separate connection lines to allow improved management of power flow from multiple sources to loads.
Regarding claim 2, Wolfe discloses that the one or more commands for the battery energy storage system to provide a power load based on the one or more charging parameters further includes providing an additional amount of power to supplement power provided by the grid (¶¶34, 67).
Regarding claim 3, Wolfe discloses predicting vehicle flow over a defined period, wherein determining the one or more charging parameters is based at least in part on the predicted vehicle flow (¶73).
Regarding claim 4, Wolfe discloses determining an expected power load over a defined period, wherein the one or more charging parameters are at least partially based on the expected power load over a defined period (¶73).
Regarding claim 6, Wolfe discloses that the one or more commands for the battery energy storage system to provide a power load based on the one or more charging parameters includes generating a power limit for the charging station to maintain the power load from the grid interconnect below a specified value (¶34).
Regarding claim 7, Wolfe discloses that the power load provided to the charging station is varied over time (¶¶34, 73).
Regarding claim 8, Wolfe discloses that the battery energy storage system is remote from the charging station (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 9, Wolfe discloses a first meter operably coupled with a first connection line upstream of the grid interconnect; and a second meter operably coupled with a second connection line between the grid interconnect and the battery energy storage system (¶¶7, 45, 55, 62-63).
Regarding claim 10, Wolfe discloses that a machine-learned model is used to determine the one or more charging parameters (¶73).
Regarding claim 22, Wolfe discloses that the power load is determined prior to supplying the power load (¶¶65, 73-74).
Regarding claim 23, Wolfe discloses that the power load exceeds the defined power value of the grid interconnect (¶¶34, 67).
Claim(s) 5 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe in view of Galin and Guo (US 2022/0407310).
Regarding claim 11, Wolfe discloses a method for operating a charging network, the method comprising: receiving a requested power load by a charging station at a defined time (Fig. 4, ¶73); determining a defined power value of a grid interconnect, the defined power value being different than an amount of power received from a power grid (Fig. 3; ¶¶34, 67, grid connection limit); determining one or more charging parameters based at least in part on the requested power load by the charging station at the defined time and the defined power value of the grid interconnect, wherein a machine-learned model is used to determine the one or more charging parameters, and wherein the one or more charging parameters are at least partially based on a peak shaving algorithm that produces a peak shave target for the battery energy storage system (¶¶3, 7, 46, 50, 60, 64, 71, 73-74); and generating one or more commands for a battery energy storage system and the charging station to provide a power load based on the one or more charging parameters (¶¶46, 60, 73-74);
receiving, at the charging station, a first amount of alternating current (AC) power through a first connection line and a second amount of direct current (DC) power from a battery energy storage system through a second connection line (Fig. 2; ¶¶56, 58, 59, 67), the first connection line separated from the second connection line at the charging system (Fig. 2, connection from 280/211 separate from connection from 230a), wherein the charging station receives the second amount of power to supplement power provided by the first line (¶¶34, 67) to form a supplemented power load, wherein the supplemented power load exceeds the defined power value of the grid interconnect with AC power from the grid and DC power from the battery energy storage system (¶¶34, 37, 50, 58, 67); and
converting at least one of the first amount of power from DC power to AC power or the second amount of AC power to DC power downstream of the first connection line and the second connection line (¶56); and
transferring the supplemented power load to an electric resource through a single electric resource connection line (¶¶34, 37, 67).
If Wolfe is found to be unclear regarding the first connection line separated from the second connection line at the charging system and that the charging station receives the second amount of power to supplement power provided by the first line, the charging station forming a supplemented power load, and transferring the supplemented power load to an electric resource through a single electric resource connection line, Galin also discloses:
receiving, at the charging station, a first amount of AC power transferred through a first connection line and a second amount of DC power a the battery energy storage system through the second connection line, the first connection line separated from the second connection line at the charging system, wherein the charging station receives the second amount of power to supplement power provided by the first line to form a supplemented power load, wherein the supplemented power load exceeds the defined power value of the grid interconnect with AC power from the grid and DC power from the battery energy storage system (Fig. 1A, 111/113 and 101/106 connected to 102 through different lines; Fig. 7, 704/705 and 701/713 connected to 702 through different lines; Fig. 8, blocks 823, 829, 830; ¶¶65, 67, 85, 132-133, 137)
converting at least one of the first amount of power from DC power to AC power or the second amount of AC power to DC power downstream of the first connection line and the second connection line (Fig. 7; ¶¶53, 55); and
transferring the supplemented power load to an electric resource through a single electric resource connection line (Figs. 2 and 7).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Wolfe and Galin, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving management of power flow from grid and battery supply to a charger through independent connections from the grid and battery. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Wolfe discloses a charger that receives power from both the grid and a battery and provides power to loads (EVs). Galin teaches that the grid and battery should be connected to the charger through separate lines to allow multiple configurable power paths from different sources to loads. The teachings of Galin are directly applicable to Wolfe in the same way, so that Wolfe’s system would similarly connect chargers to the grid and to the batteries using separate connection lines to allow improved management of power flow from multiple sources to loads.
If Wolfe is found to be unclear regarding a machine-learned model used to determine the one or more charging parameters, wherein the one or more charging parameters are at least partially based on a peak shaving estimation algorithm that produces a peak shave target for the battery energy storage system; Guo also discloses these limitations (¶¶15, 72). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Wolfe, Galin, and Guo, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of adaptively controlling power delivery based on demand and available power. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Wolfe discloses controlling charge parameters based on peak-shaving. Guo provides further details of a peak-shaving algorithm. The teachings of Guo are directly applicable to Wolfe in the same way, so that Wolfe would similarly control charge parameters adaptively to account for demand and available power.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Wolfe discloses producing a peak shave target for the battery energy storage system based on a peak shaving estimation algorithm, wherein the one or more charging parameters are at least partially based on the peak shave target for the battery energy storage system (¶¶3, 50, 64, 71). If Wolfe is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Guo discloses the same (¶¶15, 72). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Wolfe discloses that the one or more commands for the battery energy storage system to provide a power load based on the one or more charging parameters further includes providing an additional amount of power to supplement power provided by the grid (¶¶34, 67).
Regarding claim 13, Wolfe discloses predicting vehicle flow over a defined period, wherein determining the one or more charging parameters is based at least in part on the predicted vehicle flow (¶73).
Regarding claim 14, Wolfe discloses determining an expected power load over a defined period, wherein the one or more charging parameters are at least partially based on the expected power load over a defined period (¶73).
Claim(s) 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe in view of Galin and Kruszelnicki (US 2018/0339597).
Regarding claim 21, Wolfe discloses a charging network comprising: a charging system configured to be electrically coupled with a power source (Fig. 1; ¶3), the charging system comprising: a grid interconnect, a battery energy storage system electrically coupled with the grid interconnect, a charging station electrically coupled with the grid interconnect and the battery energy storage system in parallel (Figs. 1 and 2, electric vehicle chargers/charging stations connected to electrical grid and energy storage systems in parallel, the energy storage systems also electrically coupled to the grid); and
a computing system operably coupled with the battery energy storage system and the charging station, the computing system including a processor and associated memory, the memory storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, configure the computing system (Fig. 10; ¶40) to: determine a requested power load by the charging station at a defined time (Fig. 4; ¶73), determine a defined power value of the grid interconnect (Fig. 3; ¶¶34, 67, grid connection limit), determine one or more charging parameters based at least in part on the requested power load by the charging station at the defined time and the defined power value of the grid interconnect using a machine-learned model trained on historical data (¶¶46, 60, 73-74, 110); and generate one or more commands for the battery energy storage system or the charging station to provide a power load based on the one or more charging parameters (¶¶46, 60, 73-74), wherein the power load includes a first amount of alternating current (AC) power through a first connection line and a second amount of direct current (DC) power from a battery energy storage system through a second connection line (Fig. 2; ¶¶56, 58, 59, 67), the first connection line separated from the second connection line (Fig. 2, connection from 280/211 separate from connection from 230a); and
wherein the charging station is configured to convert at least one of the first amount of power from DC power to AC power or the second amount of AC power to DC power downstream of the first connection line and the second connection line (¶56).
Wolfe does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first connection line is separated from the second connection line between the grid interconnect and the charging station and the second connection line is separated from the first connection line between the battery energy storage system and the charging station. Galin discloses that the power load includes a first amount of alternating current (AC) power through a first connection line and a second amount of direct current (DC) power from a battery energy storage system through a second connection line, the first connection line separated from the second connection line between the grid interconnect and the charging station and the second connection line separated from the first connection line between the battery energy storage system and the charging station (Fig. 1A, 111/113 and 101/106 connected to 102 through different lines; Fig. 5; Fig. 7, 704/705 and 701/713 connected to 702 through different lines; ¶¶65, 67, 85, 132, 133).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Wolfe and Galin, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving management of power flow from grid and battery supply to a charger through independent connections from the grid and battery. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Wolfe discloses a charger that receives power from both the grid and a battery and provides power to loads (EVs). Galin teaches that the grid and battery should be connected to the charger through separate lines to allow multiple configurable power paths from different sources to loads. The teachings of Galin are directly applicable to Wolfe in the same way, so that Wolfe’s system would similarly connect chargers to the grid and to the batteries using separate connection lines to allow improved management of power flow from multiple sources to loads.
Wolfe does not appear to explicitly disclose a remote power management module located in the remote electric resource and configured to electrically couple with the charging station through a single electric resource connection line, the remote power management module further configured to control an amount of power or a timing of power being transferred into or out of a remote electric resource. Kruszelnicki discloses these limitations (¶58). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Wolfe, Galin, and Kruszelnicki, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of controlling charging in accordance with the battery’s management system. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Wolfe discloses EV charging stations. Kruszelnicki teaches that the EV battery management system connects with the charging station to control charging based on battery conditions. The teachings of Kruszelnicki are directly applicable to Wolfe in the same way, so that Wolfe’s charging stations would similarly charge EVs in accordance with the EV’s battery management.
Regarding claim 24, Wolfe discloses a remote power management module configured to electrically couple with the charging station through a single electric resource connection line, the remote power management module further configured to control an amount of power or a timing of power being transferred into or out of a remote electric resource (¶¶57, 74, computing devices connected to charging stations remotely or physically via a network, such as serial, LAN, etc. to control distribution of allowed amounts of power); if Wolfe is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Kruszelnicki also discloses the same (¶58). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claimed combined power load is fully supported by the originally-filed disclosure, because Fig. 1 shows the charging stations receiving power through separate first and second connection lines and outputting that power to the EV through a single connection line, such that the power through the first and second connection lines are necessarily combined. Remarks 9. The examiner disagrees. As discussed in the §112 rejection set forth in the office action mailed on 11 September 2025, there are various ways of operating charging stations having two input connection lines that do not require combining the power from the two lines (e.g., receiving power from one line in some circumstances/periods, and the other line in other circumstances/periods). Similarly, providing supplemental power to the charging site/system is not the same as requiring that charging stations combine power from multiple sources.
Applicant asserts that the examiner fails to explain why persons having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wolfe and Galin in the proposed manner. Remarks 15. The examiner disagrees; the motivation to combine is explicitly stated on p. 8 of the office action mailed on 11 September 2025.
Applicant asserts that Galin teaches “upstream merging”, citing merger 218 in Fig. 2 and ¶¶85, 132-133, which is the opposite topology of the claim. Remarks 16. Applicant misinterprets Galin. Merger 218 is not “upstream”; the merger is a component of the charging station 202, which receives power from separate input power lines 240 and 250. Fig. 7 similarly illustrates charging station 702 receiving power from various sources and transmitting combined/supplemental power to the EV 706. The plain fact is that Applicant’s alleged “very heart of Applicant’s contribution” (Remarks 16) was already known.
Applicant further asserts that the prior art fails to teach various amended limitations, which are addressed above in the rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
2 February 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851