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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/24/2026 has been entered.
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 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. Independent claims 1, 9, and 17, as amended, require “reduc[ing] a number of vehicles required to perform the electric power transfer.” It is unclear and thus indefinite as to what the reduction in vehicles is in reference to (i.e., compared to what standard?). The claims only require one vehicle to be selected and, while the claimed vehicle is “among a plurality of vehicles,” there is no requirement that the energy transfer to/from the network requires more than one vehicle. Accordingly, it is unclear as to what the reduction in vehicles is in reference to. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
To potentially overcome the 112 rejection, the claim needs to establish first that more than one vehicle is required for the energy transfer and that selecting vehicles (plural) meeting the claimed “smaller difference” minimizes the required number vehicles needed for energy transfer (however, it is not readily apparent that the specification will support such an amendment). For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted such that the selection of a single vehicle with the claimed “smaller difference” reduces the “number of vehicles required to perform the electric power transfer.”
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Publication No. CN113067370 to Shanghai Envision Innovation Intelligent Technology Co Ltd Envision Digital International Pte Ltd. (“SEIIT”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0136899 to Alex Mashinsky (“Mashinsky”).
Regarding claim 1,
A system (See SEIIT at par. [0001].) comprising:
at least one processor (Server 700 includes CPU 701. See SEIIT at pars. [0046], and [0285]-[0286] and Fig. 7.) configured to:
acquire information indicating a required electric power amount by which transfer of electric power is required between a battery included in a vehicle and an electric power network (SEIIT discloses a charging control strategy for V2G charging station to minimize power grid fluctuations. The server acquires real-time power consumption of the V2G charging station and the total power of the electric vehicles to develop a charging control strategy that supports charging and discharge of the electric vehicles. See, e.g., SEIIT at pars. [0005], [0042]-[0046], [0050], [0087]-[0088], and [0094]-[0103] and Figs. 2 and 3.), and
information indicating a transferable electric power amount that can be transferred from the battery to the electric power network or transferred from the electric power network to the battery (Server calculates the current SOC of a vehicle (SOCNOW) and determines, based at least in part on the SOC needed for departure (SOCDEP), if the vehicles need to be charged from the grid, can be used for discharging to the grid, or are waiting to leave. See SEIIT at pars. [0105]-[0114], [0205] and [0213]-[0221] and Figs. 3 and 5. The difference between SOCNOW and SOCDEP corresponds to “transferable electric power amount.”
select a vehicle with a smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others by priority among a plurality of vehicles as a vehicle including a battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network (SEIIT discloses that the server selects vehicles with SOCNOW less than the SOCDEP needed for departure for charging and selects vehicles with current SOCNOW greater than the SOCDEP needed for departure for discharging to the grid. See SEIIT at pars. [0105]-[0114], [0205] and [0213]-[0221] and Figs. 3 and 5. However, SEIIT does not explicitly disclose that the server selects vehicles with “a smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others.” In the same field of endeavor, power management of vehicle batteries (and thus analogous art), Mashinsky discloses that it is beneficial to reduce the number of charging cycles and discharging cycles of a battery. See Mashinsky at claims 21 and 30. Because, prior to its departure, SEIIT’s server selects and discharges a vehicle when the SOCNOW is greater than SOCDEP, to limit the number of discharge cycles (as taught by Mashinsky), it would have been obvious to a select a vehicle with excess energy (SOCNOW – SOCDEP) that closely matches the required amount for the grid. Similarly, because, prior to its departure, SEIIT’s server selects and charges a vehicle when the SOCNOW is less than SOCDEP, to limit the number of charge cycles (as taught by Mashinsky), it would have been obvious to a select a vehicle that has deficient energy (SOCDEP – SOCNOW) that closely matches the amount to transfer from the grid. Accordingly, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the server in SEIIT to select vehicles with excess and deficient energies that closely match the respective transfer to or transfer from the grid in order reduce the number of charge/discharge cycles so as to extend the usable life of the vehicle battery. See Mashinsky at claims 21 (“PMS controls the power transfer … to reduce the number of charge cycles needed by the second electrical storage device to thereby extend the usable life of the second electrical storage device”) and claim 30 (“the PMS controls the transfer … to reduce the number of discharge cycles needed by the second electrical storage device to thereby extend the usable life of the second electrical storage device.”). Because both SEIIT and Mashinsky relate to power management systems for vehicle batteries, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.),
to reduce a number of vehicles required to perform the electric power transfer (Because the claim only requires selection of a single vehicle, there is no independent distinction between selecting a vehicle with the claimed “smaller difference” and performing the claimed reduction in vehicles. That is, selecting a vehicle with the claimed “smaller different” will also reduce the number of vehicles. Accordingly, for the purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted such that the selection of a vehicle with the claimed “smaller difference” also reduces the “number of vehicles required to perform the electric power transfer.” Because SEIIT and Mashinsky discloses the claimed “selection,” as discussed above, then SEIIT in view of Mashinsky will also render obvious the claimed “reduction.”); and
perform the electric power transfer between the selected vehicle and the electric power network (SEITT at pars. [0013]-[0015], [0156]-[0157], and [0273].)
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to classify the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups based on a combination of a state of charge of a battery included in each of the plurality of vehicles and the transferable electric power amount (SEIIT discloses that the server obtains charging demand information from the vehicles and uses the information to classify the demand type of the electric vehicle as “a dischargeable type, a to-be-charged type, and a to-be-departed type” (“plurality of groups”) based on SOCNOW (“state of charge of a battery”) and the difference between SOCNOW and SOCDEP (“transferable electric power amount”). See SEIIT at [0102]-[0113].),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to select the vehicle including the battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network from among vehicles classified into a group which is selected based on information indicating whether electric power supply from the battery to the electric power network is required and the required electric power amount among the plurality of groups classified (SEIIT discloses selection of vehicles for receiving energy from the grid (charging) or transmitting power to the grid (discharging) according to various power control strategies based on the classification (discussed above) in order to improve reliability of grid operation (“perform electric power transfer with the electric power network”). See, e.g., SEIIT at pars [0065]-0067] [0154]-[0157], [0174]-[0179], and [0196]-[0202] and Fig. 2 and 3; see also SEIIT at pars. [0203]-[0267] and Fig. 5.).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to classify the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups based on a combination of (i) a state of charge of a battery included in each of the plurality of vehicles and (ii) a time interval until a departure time (As discussed above, SEIIT discloses a classification system in which electric vehicles (“vehicles”) are categorized as: 1) “dischargeable” if the current SOC, SOCnow, (“state of charge of a battery”) of the vehicle is greater than the SOC, SOCdep, needed for departure and the time for vehicle departure tdep (“time interval until a departure time”) is greater than 15 minutes; 2) as “waiting to-be-leaved” if the current SOC, SOCnow, of the vehicle is greater than the SOC, SOCdep, needed for departure and the time for vehicle departure tdep is less than or equal to 15 minutes; and 3) as “waiting to-be-charged” if the current SOC, SOCnow, of the vehicle is less than the SOC, SOCdep, needed for departure. (Note: see par. 113 which provides context to the “waiting” categories of par. 111.) Thus, SEIIT discloses the claimed “classification unit.” See, e.g., Abstract and pars. [0045], [0050], and [0111]-[0113].)
wherein when electric power is to be supplied from the battery to the electric power network, the at least one processor is configured to select a vehicle classified into a group having the time interval that is longer than others among the plurality of groups classified by priority as the vehicle including the battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network (As discussed above, SEIIT discloses a classification system in which electric vehicles (“vehicles”) are categorized as: 1) “dischargeable” if the SOCnow (“state of charge of a battery”) of the vehicle is greater than the SOCdep needed for departure and the time for vehicle departure tdep (“time interval until a departure time”) is greater than 15 minutes; 2) as “waiting to-be-leaved” if the current SOCnow of the vehicle is greater than the SOCdep needed for departure and the time for vehicle departure tdep is less than or equal to 15 minutes; and 3) as “waiting to-be-charged” if the current SOCnow of the vehicle is less than the SOCdep needed for departure. (Note: see par. 113 which provides context to the “waiting” categories of par. 111.) Because the time period for the “waiting to-be-leaved” vehicles (“others”) is less than the time period for the “discharging” vehicles, a vehicle from the “discharging” category corresponds to “a vehicle classified into a group having the time interval that is longer than others.” Thus, SEIIT discloses the claimed “when electric power is to be supplied from the battery to the electric power network, the selection unit selects a vehicle classified into a group having the time interval that is longer than others among the plurality of groups classified by the classification unit by priority as the vehicle including the battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network.” See, e.g., SEIIT at Abstract and pars. [0045], [0050], [0111]-0113].).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to classify the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups based on a combination of (i) a state of charge of a battery included in each of the plurality of vehicles and (ii) a time interval until a departure time (As discussed above, SEIIT discloses a classification system in which electric vehicles (“vehicles”) are categorized as: 1) “dischargeable” if the SOCnow (“state of charge of a battery”) of the vehicle is greater than the SOCdep needed for departure and the time for vehicle departure tdep (“time interval until a departure time”) is greater than 15 minutes; 2) as “waiting to-be-leaved” if the SOCnow of the vehicle is greater than the SOCdep needed for departure and the time for vehicle departure tdep is less than or equal to 15 minutes; and 3) as “waiting to-be-charged” if the SOCnow of the vehicle is less than the SOCdep needed for departure. (Note: see par. 113 which provides context to the “waiting” categories of par. 111.) Thus, SEIIT discloses the claimed “classification unit.” See, e.g., Abstract and pars. [0045], [0050], and [0111]-[0113].)
wherein when electric power is to be supplied from the electric power network to the battery, the at least one processor is configured to select a vehicle classified into a group having the time interval that is shorter than others among the plurality of groups classified by priority as the vehicle including the battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network (SEIIT discloses that vehicles classified as “waiting to-be-charged” (i.e., vehicles with a SOCnow greater than the SOCdep) can be further classified using the demand urgency ratio α, which prioritizes charging of vehicles based on at least the departure time tdep. Vehicles with a ratio α that is greater than or equal to 1 need to start charging “as soon as possible” and vehicles with a α that is less than 1 “can wait for a period of time.” Thus, vehicles with a ratio α that is less than 1 correspond to “others,” and vehicles with a ratio α that is greater than or equal to 1 correspond to “a group having the time interval that is shorter than others.” See, e.g., pars. [0111], [0113], and [0114]-[0126].).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 2, claim 5 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 3 and thus claim 5 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 2, claim 6 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 6 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 3, claim 7 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 6 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on claim 5, claim 8 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 6 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 9,
A method performed by at least one processor (Server 700 includes CPU 701 that perform the claimed method. See SEIIT at pars. [0001], [0046], and [0285]-[0286] and Fig. 7.), and comprising:
acquiring information indicating a required electric power amount by which transfer of electric power is required between a battery included in a vehicle and an electric power network, and information indicating a transferable electric power amount that can transferred from the battery to the electric power network or transferred from the electric power network to the battery; selecting a vehicle with a smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others by priority among a plurality of vehicles as a vehicle including a battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network, to reduce a number of vehicles required to perform the electric power transfer; and performing the electric power transfer between the selected vehicle and the electric power network (The remaining recited features are the same as those in claim 1 and rendered obvious for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 9:
classifying the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups based on a combination of a state of charge of a battery included in each of the plurality of vehicles and the transferable electric power amount, wherein in the selecting the vehicle with the smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others by priority as the vehicle including the battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network, the vehicle including the battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network is selected from among vehicles classified into a group which is selected based on information indicating whether electric power supply from the battery to the electric power network is required and the required electric power amount among the plurality of groups classified in the classifying the plurality of vehicles into the plurality of groups (The recited features are the same as those in claim 2 and thus rendered obvious for the reasons given above with respect to claim 2.).
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on claim 9, claim 11 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 3 and thus claim 11 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on claim 9, claim 12 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 12 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on claim 10, claim 13 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 3 and thus claim 13 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, which is dependent on claim 10, claim 14 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 14 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, which is dependent on claim 11, claim 15 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 15 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, which is dependent on claim 13, claim 16 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 16 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 17:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program (SEIIT discloses non-transitory memory (e.g., a RAM or ROM) that stores at least one instruction executable by a processor to implement its V2G charging control method. See SEIIT at pars. [0285]-[0286].), the program causing a computer to:
acquire information indicating a required electric power amount by which transfer of electric power is required between a battery included in a vehicle and an electric power network, and information indicating a transferable electric power amount that can be transferred from the battery to the electric power network or transferred from the electric power network to the battery; select a vehicle with a smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others by priority among a plurality of vehicles as a vehicle including a battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network, to reduce a number of vehicles required to perform the electric power transfer; and perform the electric power transfer between the selected vehicle and the electric power network (These features are rendered obvious for the reasons given in claim 1.).
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 17, claim 18 recites features that are substantively the same as those recited in claim 2 and thus claim 18 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 17, claim 19 recites features that are substantively the same as those recited in claim 3 and thus claim 19 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 17, claim 20 recites features that are substantively the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 20 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the §101 rejections.
Because of Applicant’s amendments, the claim elements no longer fall under §112(f).
Applicant's amendments/arguments with respect to the § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. After quoting the pertinent portion of the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 with respect to the teaching of Mashinsky, the Applicant argues the following:
Mashinsky (or SEIIT) fails to teach reducing the number of vehicles required to perform electric power transfer, as shown in paragraph [0038] of the present specification.
[and]
It is alleged in the Advisory Action that the argument that Mashinsky "fails to teach reducing the number of vehicles required to perform electric power transfer" is not persuasive because the claims do not recite this feature. Claim 1 now explicitly recites "selecting a vehicle with a smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others by priority among a plurality of vehicles as a vehicle including a battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network, to reduce a number of vehicles required to perform the electric power transfer."
For at least the above reasons, the subject matter of claim 1 is not rendered obvious in view of the cited references. Furthermore, in view of the similarity between the features recited in claims 9 and 17, and the features discussed above with respect to claim 1, claims 9 and 17 are likewise allowable.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 is respectfully requested.
Applicant’s Response at pp. 13-14 (emphasis in original).
Although the claims have been amended to explicitly recite the feature “reduce a number of vehicles required to perform the electric power transfer,” Applicant’s arguments are still not persuasive. As discussed above, the claims only require selection of a single vehicle. Setting aside the 112 rejection for now, if the mere selection of a single vehicle with the claimed “smaller difference” is enough to reduce the number of vehicles, as claimed, then the teachings SEIIT in view of Mashinsky, which read on the claimed selection, will also read on the claimed reduction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0219561 to Kobuna et al. discloses optimization of charge/discharge power amount for a vehicle group.
Brenna, Morris, et al. "Charging strategies for electric vehicles with vehicle to grid implementation for photovoltaic dispatchability." 2018 International Conference of Electrical and Electronic Technologies for Automotive. IEEE, 2018 charging strategies for electric vehicles with vehicle to grid (V2G) capabilities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights