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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection as well as the previous claim objections. Claims 10-12 are new claims.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. (US PGPUB 20190299942) in view of Nakamura (US PGPUB 20220234467).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8-9; Shih teaches; A server that uses a battery replacement apparatus for virtual power plant (VPP) control to perform power feeding to a power grid and charging from the power grid, the battery replacement apparatus provided with at least one battery replaceable with a battery mounted on at least one electrically powered vehicle, (Shih; at least Figs. 3A; paragraphs [0016] and [0045]; disclose a battery replacement server system the provides a plurality of components for communicating with an electric vehicle containing an exchangeable battery)
the battery mounted on the at least one electrically powered vehicle being a first battery, the at least one battery provided in the battery replacement apparatus being a second battery, the server comprising: (Shih; at least paragraphs [0045]-[0046]; disclose a vehicle with a first battery attached as its power source and a plurality of second batteries contained in battery slots at a swappable battery power station)
a first communication unit that receives information about a request for adjustment of power supply-and-demand in the power grid; and (Shih; at least paragraph [0064]; disclose a power source analysis component (i.e. first communication unit) which receives a request that power to the battery swap station will be, for example, interrupted from 1am-3am)
a controller that predicts a schedule of replacement of the first battery at the battery replacement apparatus, wherein (Shih; at least paragraph [0070]; discloses battery demand prediction for exchanging a battery at the battery exchange station)
the controller specifies, based on the schedule, the second battery available for the VPP control for the request for adjustment, (Shih; at least paragraphs [0071]-[0074]; disclose identifying from the plurality of available batteries, whether to charge or discharge the battery based upon a state of charge to ensure there are charged batteries that can be acquired by a user needing a battery swap)
determines, based on the specified second battery, whether or not it is possible to respond to the request for adjustment, and (Shih; at least paragraph [0077]; disclose, wherein the system makes a determination, based upon the available batteries whether it’s possible to respond to the adjustment to continue providing services, and if not, notifying the server and shutting the station down)
uses the specified second battery to perform the VPP control in response to the request for adjustment. (Shih; at least paragraphs [0071]-[0074]; disclose wherein the system can utilize specific batteries selected for discharging their power to be used for an adjustment request).
Shih appears to be silent on; A server that uses a battery replacement apparatus for virtual power plant (VPP) control to perform power feeding to a power grid and charging from the power grid,
However, Nakamura teaches; A server that uses a battery replacement apparatus for virtual power plant (VPP) control to perform power feeding to a power grid and charging from the power grid, (Nakamura; at least Fig. 3; paragraphs [0076]-[0077]; disclose utilizing an electric vehicle power charging/supply station (i.e. which can reasonably be substituted for the battery swapping station as taught by Shih) to perform virtual power plant operations by providing power to a grid using the electric power vehicle systems).
Shih and Nakamura are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, vehicle supply/charging systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of using a battery charging/supply station to operate in a VPP system as taught by Nakamura with the known system of a battery swapping and charging station as taught by Shih in order to provide a way to help supplement energy demands during a demand response event as taught by Nakamura (paragraphs [0081]-[0083]).
Regarding Claim 2; the combination of Shih and Nakamura teach; The server according to claim 1, wherein the controller detects a first number of the at least one electrically powered vehicle around the battery replacement apparatus, and predicts the schedule of replacement of the first battery based on the first number. (Shih; at least paragraph [0067]).
Regarding Claim 3; the combination of Shih and Nakamura teach; The server according to claim 2, further comprising a first memory in which a first vehicle number estimation model is stored, wherein the first vehicle number estimation model is a trained model, the trained model inputting the first number and outputting a value based on a second number of the at least one electrically powered vehicle that uses the battery replacement apparatus, out of the first number, and the controller predicts the schedule based on the first vehicle number estimation model and the first number. (Shih; at least paragraphs [0032], [0035], [0037], [0050], and [0070]).
Regarding Claim 4; the combination of Shih and Nakamura teach; The server according to claim 2, further comprising a second communication unit that receives positional information about the at least one electrically powered vehicle, and the controller detects the first number based on the positional information. (Shih; at least paragraphs [0035] and [0050]).
Regarding Claim 5; the combination of Shih and Nakamura teach; The server according to claim 1, further comprising a second memory in which a second vehicle number estimation model is stored, wherein the second vehicle number estimation model is a trained model, the trained model inputting information about date and outputting a value based on a third number of the at least one electrically powered vehicle that uses the battery replacement apparatus on the date, and the controller predicts the schedule based on the second vehicle number estimation model and the information about the date. (Shih; at least paragraphs [0032], [0035], [0037], [0050], and [0070]).
Regarding Claim 6; the combination of Shih and Nakamura teach; The server according to claim 1, wherein the controller determines, based on a state of charge (SOC) of the specified second battery, whether or not it is possible to respond to the request for adjustment. (Shih; at least paragraphs [0076]-[0077]).
Regarding Claim 7; the combination of Shih and Nakamura teach; The server according to claim 6, wherein the controller calculates a total chargeable amount or a total dischargeable amount of the second battery, based on the SOC of the specified second battery, and determines, based on the total chargeable amount or the total dischargeable amount, whether or not it is possible to respond to the request for adjustment. (Shih; at least paragraphs [0071]-[0077]).
Regarding Claim 10; the combination of Shih and Nakamura teach; The server according to claim 1, wherein the controller preferentially selects the second battery having a high SOC to replace the first battery, and specifies a different second battery, other than the second battery selected for replacement with the first battery, as the second battery available for VPP control. (Shih; at least paragraphs [0070]-[0074]).
Regarding Claim 11; the combination of Shih and Nakamura teach; The server according to claim 1, wherein the controller calculates, based on a state of charge (SOC) of the specified second battery, a first amount of electric power indicating total chargeable amount or total dischargeable amount of the second battery, determines whether the first amount of electric power is greater than or equal to a second amount of electric power that satisfies the request for adjustment, and determines it is possible to respond to the request for adjustment when the first amount of electric power is determined to be greater than or equal to the second amount of electric power. (Shih; at least paragraphs [0070]-[0077]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 recites, “The server according to claim 1, wherein the controller calculates, based on a state of charge (SOC) of the specified second battery, first amount of electric power indicating a total chargeable amount or total dischargeable amount of the second battery,
determines whether the first amount of electric power is greater than or equal to a second amount of electric power that satisfies the request for adjustment,
when the first amount of electric power is more than or equal to the second amount of electric power:
calculates a time required to charge or discharge the second amount of electric power by using the specified second battery,
determines whether the calculated time is less than or equal to a requested time that satisfies the request for adjustment, and
determines it is possible to respond to the request for adjustment when the first amount of electric power is determined to be greater than or equal to the second amount of electric power and the calculated time is less than or equal to the requested time.”
The closest prior art of record is Shih et al. (US PGPUB 20190299942). Shih discloses an EV battery exchange system and method which determines battery exchange schedules as well as determines a plurality of batteries that can be utilized to respond to various events. The system will account for a state of charge of the plurality of batteries, predict batteries that will need to be swapped, based on the predicted schedule/demand as well as the state of charge, and will designate batteries to be utilized to perform discharge operations in the event they are required while preventing them from being swapped into a vehicle. However, Shih does not account for a charging time to charge the batteries to a specific level such that they will even be able to respond to a demand event, thus establishes a method to determine if a response is possible in a demand situation, which Shih does not account for.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 3/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shih et al. (US PGPUB 20190299942) in view of Nakamura (US PGPUB 20220234467).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kachi (US PGPUB 20140184159): disclose a vehicle battery charging/swapping system and method that in the event of a demand response event, can utilize batteries at the station for providing power to a grid to cover the response.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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 W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights