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) 1-5 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klose et al, WO 2012/167082.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Klose et al disclose a smart phone control and notification for an electric vehicle charging station comprising: an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) including a charger relay circuit and a dry contact input to receive inputs; [ Fig. 2A - contactor 42, inputs L 1, L2, GND; §0038, 0043-0047] a current transformer (CT) clamp that is installed on an external electrical circuit to be measured against, [Fig. 2A - the voltage regulator device 44. such as a transformer, which connects to inputs L 1, L2, GND from external network; §0042 ] wherein the CT clamp outputs a signal that can be calibrated to generate an analog signal that passes a minimum threshold of the dry contact input, [ Fig. 2A - voltage regulator device (e.g. transformer) 44 outputs a +5V signal to a voltage monitor circuit] wherein normally the inputs at the dry contact input in the EVSE are programmed to serve a safety bypass of the EVSE that allows the external electrical circuit to shutdown the charger relay circuit,
Klose et al fail to explicitly disclose requiring plugging and unplugging the electric vehicle to restart charging and turning off delivery of power to the EV if the calibrated current on the CT clamp is exceeded. However, it is normal that the inputs at the dry contact input in the EVSE are programmed to serve a safety bypass of the EVSE that allows the external electrical circuit to shut down the charger relay circuit, requiring plugging and unplugging an electric vehicle (EV) to restart charging, wherein a logic behind the external electrical circuit is modified to: turn off delivery of power to the EV when a calibrated current on the CT clamp is exceeded in the case of feature, there is an implicit disclosure in Klose et al of a plug-in electric vehicle requiring to be plugged into an EVSE in order to charge and conversely, it is normal practice to unplug a plug-in electric vehicle from the EVSE when charging is finished. In the case of a fault, the EVSE of Klose et al disconnects the power flow when required, be it for safety reasons or otherwise. This is also normal practice in the prior art. Hence, such feature does not contribute an inventive activity over either Klose et al or normal practice in the prior art. Furthermore, the voltage regulating device 44 is connected to inputs L 1, L2 and GND and outputs a +5V (logical) signal which in turn is relayed to the CTRL CKT/ISOLATION CONTROL BOARD of Fig 2A and hence implicitly performs the function of feature. Therefore, it would have an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, merely defines straight-forward implementation details regarding an overvoltage/fault monitoring duration being programmable. This is normal, common practice in the prior art. Therefore, it would have an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, appears merely to define a design choice of an input threshold value to prevent known undesirable effects. Therefore, the choice of such a value will either be either arbitrary or obvious. Therefore, it would have an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 14-15, merely defines straight-forward implementation details regarding current transformer having logic circuitry outputting a signal value proportional to a current detected by the transformer. Therefore, the choice of such a value will either be either arbitrary or obvious. Therefore, it would have an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant teaches a system for dry-contact based automatic alignment of electric vehicle charging load to whole circuit consumption which includes wherein to ensure a continuity of operation, a two-step approach can be used for a large-step-down, an adaptable-step-up, wherein in a modified algorithm, instead of closing a relay, the EVSE reduces a current by a large step and then verifies whether the dry contact input still indicates a reduction is needed, if a further reduction is needed. then an additional large step is performed, wherein a size of the additional large step is determined depending on a maximum charger current and local regulation for how long an overcurrent protection device needs to turn current off, wherein a different. smaller step down could be chosen depending on a jurisdiction and the EVSE, wherein after a step down triggered by a change in rest-of-building consumption, the EVSE waits always configurable X seconds before attempting a step up, wherein the adaptable-step-up works in a discovery mode to try to maximize the current allocated to an EV slowly and safely, wherein an algorithm starts with a step-up that is 50% of the step-down, if there is an indication from the CT of overload in less than X seconds from the step-up; the step-up value is changed to 50% of the previous step-up value, wherein an adjustment exercise continues until a dry contact interrupt is gone for more than X seconds; and wherein at this point, a load is aligned to a building and if an alignment to the load of the building is achieved at less than a maximum charger current for Y seconds, the EVSE attempts a step-up again. starting from 50% of the step-down value. until a steady state is reached such that the algorithm repeats throughout a charging session. These limitations in conjunction in conjunction with other limitations in the claims were not shown a by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Passmore et al, US Patent No. 11,787,304, disclose a smart management apparatus and system for electric vehicle charging. Tsuchiya, US Pub. 2022/0289060, disclose a control system and energy management method.
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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
Prosecution Insights