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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toya (US 2017/0193250) in view of Igata et al. (EP3486882A1).
Regarding claim 1, Toya teaches a management method (figs. 3 and 6)of a power storage device (101), the management method comprising: when energy management by charging or discharging of a power storage device is requested from an aggregator (102), when determining the aggregator having requested is a registered aggregator (S205-S206), performing charging or discharging of the power storage device in accordance with the request (S206), and wherein determining the aggregator having requested is not a registered aggregator, not performing charging or discharging of the power storage device in accordance with the request (S205 and S207) ([0101]-[0114] and [0130]-[0137]).
Toya fails to teach determining whether or not a requested magnitude of power for the charging or discharging exceeds a predetermined value as claimed.
However, Igata teaches electric vehicle battery management (fig. 2) comprising determining whether or not a requested magnitude of power for the charging or discharging exceeds a predetermined value (“state of charge”) as claimed (figs. 3-10).
In view of Igata’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Toya by incorporating the teaching as taught by Igata in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Toya as modified by Igata teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Igata further teaches wherein the power storage device is provided to a vehicle by a lease, and the registered aggregator is a terminal of an owner of the power storage device (figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Toya as modified by Igata teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Igata further teaches when the request magnitude of the power is less than the predetermined value, performing charging or discharging of the power storage device in accordance with the request regardless of whether or not the aggregator having requested is the registered aggregator (figs. 5-10).
Regarding claim 4, Toya as modified by Igata teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Igata further teaches a vehicle control device (204, fig. 1) comprising: a processor ([0036]); and a storage device (206, fig. 1) that stores a program for causing the processor to perform the management method for a power storage device (214, fig. 2) according to claim 1, wherein the identification information of the registered aggregator is stored in the storage device ([0067]-[0071]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized to modify the system of Toya to store the aggregator information in the storage device of Igata instead of the server of Toya since it is just a matter of shifting functionality for storing the aggregator information. Moreover, it has been decided that a mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious expedient over a prior art. See M.P.E.P. 2144.01 (VI)(C).
Regarding claim 5, Toya as modified by Igata teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Igata further teaches a vehicle (200, fig. 2) that performs the management method for a power storage device (214, fig. 2) according to claim 1, the vehicle comprising: a vehicle body (fig. 2); a power storage device (214, fig. 2) mounted on the vehicle body; and control device (204, fig. 1) that performs the management method with regard to the power storage device, wherein the registered aggregator is registered in the control device ([0067]-[0071). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized to modify the system of Toya to store the aggregator information in the storage device of Igata instead of the server of Toya since it is just a matter of shifting functionality for storing the aggregator information. Moreover, it has been decided that a mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious expedient over a prior art. See M.P.E.P. 2144.01 (VI)(C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Amari et al. (US 2019/0061552); Kitaoka (EP 3363676A1); Kyoung (US 2014/0232356); Holme (US 11,691,518); Uyeki (US 2022/0051319); Ikui et al. (US 2022/0024340); Namiki (US 2020/0386561); Tu et al. (US 2019/0287190) and Outwater et al. (US 2014/0114448) are cited because they are related to power storage device management system and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights