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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 12/06/2023 claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 14 are independent.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because acronyms are used without proper definition. Spell out an acronym or abbreviation in the first mention, with the acronym identified in parenthesis; then use the acronym throughout the remainder of abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: acronyms are used without proper definition. Spell out an acronym or abbreviation in the first mention, with the acronym identified in parenthesis; then use the acronym throughout the remainder of abstract.. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 replace “and” with --an-- for improved reading comprehension. For examination purposes “and” will be interpreted as “an”, however, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 replace “an” with --a-- for improved reading comprehension. For examination purposes “an” will be interpreted as “a”, however, appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (USPGPN 20240075826) and further in view of Nergaard et al. (USPGPN 20230264594).
With respect to independent claim 1, Miller teaches a bidirectional power transfer system (Figs. 1-2, electrical power system 10/100), comprising a power source within EVSE (Fig. 2, black start battery (BSB) 35 within an electrified vehicle charging system 30).
Miller teaches a first switch that transitions to a closed state so that the power source within the EVSE can power communications between the EVSE and an electrified vehicle (Fig. 2; switch 51 is closed to wake up the vehicle 70 during a power system outage thus enabling communications between the vehicle 70 and the charging system 30).
However, Miller fails to explicitly teach a second switch that transitions to a closed state so that the power source can be recharged from the electrified vehicle.
Nergaard teaches a switch that transitions to a closed state so that the power source can be recharged from the electrified vehicle (Fig. 4, battery 402 and contactors; ¶[19], last sentence).
Vehicle-to-home (V2H) technology uses an electric vehicle’s battery as a backup power source during grid outages. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Nergaard’s charging of the auxiliary power supply during V2H operations to Miller’s system with a DC battery that helps wake up and control the system after an outage in order to charge the auxiliary battery during V2H operations. The advantage of this being “in order to control the additional switches and allow for power-up when the utility grid is down, some additional auxiliary power wires are needed as well as a small energy source such as a battery” (see ¶[16] of Nergaard).
With respect to claim 2, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Miller teaches wherein the power source is a battery (Fig. 2, BSB 35).
With respect to claim 3, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. The applicant discloses in ¶[19] and ¶[47] of the disclosure that the power source can be no more than 13 V. Thus, Miller teaches wherein the battery is at least 13 Volts (¶[52-53]; the voltage supplied is 12 V thus the BSB 35 is 12 V).
With respect to claim 4, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Miller fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4. Applicant does not disclose a criticality for wherein the power source is capacitor. As such, it would have been obvious to select a capacitor as a power source depending on the operational circumstances of the overall power system. The advantage of this being improving efficiency and cost effectiveness.
With respect to claim 5, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 4. However, Miller fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5. Applicant does not disclose a criticality for wherein the power source is an ultracapacitor. As such, it would have been obvious to select an ultracapacitor as a power source depending on the operational circumstances of the overall power system. The advantage of this being improving efficiency and cost effectiveness.
With respect to claim 6, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Miller teaches wherein the EVSE includes the first switch (Fig. 2, switch 51 is withing the charging system 30).
With respect to claim 7, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Miller teaches wherein communications from the EVSE to the electrified vehicle initiate a power transfer from the electrified vehicle, through the EVSE (¶[23]), to a structure that is operably coupled to the EVSE (Fig. 1, structure 20 coupled to charging system 30).
With respect to claim 8, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Miller teaches comprising a third switch so that power from the electrified vehicle can be used to power communications between the EVSE and the structure (Fig. 2, switch 56 closes enabling power link between the controller 46 and the inverter 28 on the building side).
Although Miller fails to explicitly teach the third switch closes to power communication between the EVSE and the structure, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include this feature in view of Nergaard’s charging of the auxiliary power supply. Thus, the auxiliary battery would not significantly discharge while supplying power to the communication interfaces between the EVSE and the building.
With respect to independent claim 14, Miller teaches a power transfer method, comprising powering communications between EVSE and an electrified vehicle using a power source within the EVSE (Fig. 2, switch 51 is closed to wake up the vehicle 70 during a power system outage thus enabling communications between the vehicle 70 and the charging system 30 using BSB 35 within charging system 30).
Miller teaches in response to the communications between the EVSE to the electrified vehicle, transferring power (¶[23]) from the electrified vehicle through the EVSE to a structure (Fig. 1, structure 20).
However, Miller fails to explicitly teach recharging the power source within the EVSE during the transferring using power from the electrified vehicle.
Nergaard teaches recharging the power source within the EVSE during the transferring using power from the electrified vehicle (¶[19], last sentence).
Vehicle-to-home (V2H) technology uses an electric vehicle’s battery as a backup power source during grid outages. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Nergaard’s charging of the auxiliary power supply during V2H operations to Miller’s system with a DC battery that helps wake up and control the system after an outage in order to charge the auxiliary battery during V2H operations. The advantage of this being “in order to control the additional switches and allow for power-up when the utility grid is down, some additional auxiliary power wires are needed as well as a small energy source such as a battery” (see ¶[16] of Nergaard).
With respect to claim 15, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Further, Miller teaches powering communications between the EVSE and the structure using power from the electrified vehicle (Fig. 2, switch 56 closes enabling power link between the controller 46 and the inverter 28 on the building side).
With respect to claim 16, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Further, Miller teaches transitioning a first switch to a closed state to enable the power source to power the communications between the EVSE and the electrified vehicle (Fig. 2; switch 51 is closed to wake up the vehicle 70 during a power system outage thus enabling communications between the vehicle 70 and the charging system 30), and transitioning the first switch to an open state when transferring power from the electrified vehicle through the EVSE to the structure (¶[49]).
With respect to claim 17, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. The applicant discloses in ¶[19] and ¶[47] of the disclosure that the power source can be no more than 13 V. Thus, Miller teaches wherein the power source within EVSE is a battery that is no more than 13 Volts (¶[52-53]; the voltage supplied is 12 V thus the BSB 35 is 12 V).
With respect to claim 18, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Further, Miller teaches during the transferring, powering communications between the EVSE and the structure using power transferred to the EVSE from the electrified vehicle (Fig. 2, switch 56 closes enabling power link between the controller 46 and the inverter 28 on the building side).
With respect to claim 20, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 18. Further, Miller teaches further comprising transitioning at least one second switch from an open state to a closed state to enable the powering of communications between the EVSE and the structure (¶[49]).
Claims 9-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Nergaard, and further in view of Goergen et al. (USPGPN 20230331112).
With respect to claim 9, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. However, Miller fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9.
Goergen teaches comprising Ethernet cabling, the communications between the EVSE and the structure transferred along the Ethernet cabling (Fig. 4, connection 45; ¶[31]).
Power over Ethernet (PoE) transmits both electrical power and data over a single standard Ethernet cable. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Goergen’s PoE to Miller’s system in order to enable startup power and communications between the EVSE and the structure via an Ethernet cable. The advantage being the method enables facilitating power distribution and data communications with authentication to efficiently and effectively support operations (see ¶[03] of Goergen).
With respect to claim 10, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 9. However, Miller fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 10.
Nergaard teaches comprising a switched-mode power supply within the EVSE, the switched-mode power supply powered by the power from the electrified vehicle (Fig. 5, a power supply with a MOSFET which is powered by the vehicle).
A switched-mode power supply (SMPS) is an electronic power supply that efficiently converts electric power using a high-speed switching regulator. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Nergaard’s SMPS to Miller’s system. The advantage of this being “in order to control the additional switches and allow for power-up when the utility grid is down, some additional auxiliary power wires are needed as well as a small energy source such as a battery” (see ¶[16] of Nergaard).
With respect to claim 11, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 9. However, Miller fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 11.
Nergaard teaches comprising a boost circuit within the EVSE, the boost circuit boosting power received from the vehicle before transferring the power to the structure (Fig. 4, it is well known that PFC/DCDC circuits boost power to a stable DC voltage which are then used by the power supply for the EVSE control circuits for powering the structure).
Boost circuits is a DC-DC power converter that steps ups a lower input voltage to a higher output voltage. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Nergaard’s boost circuit to Miller’s system in order to elevate the voltage output to a level that accounts for losses. The advantage of this being “in order to control the additional switches and allow for power-up when the utility grid is down, some additional auxiliary power wires are needed as well as a small energy source such as a battery” (see ¶[16] of Nergaard).
With respect to claim 12, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 9. Further, Miller teaches wherein the EVSE is configured to operably couple to a combiner box of the structure when the EVSE is transferring power from the electrified vehicle, through the EVSE, to a structure that is operably couple to the EVSE (Fig. 1, electrical power distribution panel 26; ¶[35]).
With respect to claim 13, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 12. Further, Miller teaches wherein the combiner is batteryless (It is well known that electrical power distribution panels are batteryless).
With respect to claim 19, Miller teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 18. However, Miller fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 19.
Goergen teaches wherein communications between the EVSE and the structure are Ethernet communications (Fig. 4, connection 45; ¶[31]).
Power over Ethernet (PoE) transmits both electrical power and data over a single standard Ethernet cable. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Goergen’s PoE to Miller’s system in order to enable startup power and communications between the EVSE and the structure via an Ethernet cable. The advantage being the method enables facilitating power distribution and data communications with authentication to efficiently and effectively support operations (see ¶[03] of Goergen).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Salter et al. (USPGPN 20230104157) teaches a way for an electric vehicle to share battery power with a home or other building.
Layden et al. (USPGPN 20170368949) teaches a home battery system that can help charge an electrified vehicle’s battery pack in more than one way. The system has its own internal battery array that can store energy from the electrical grid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights