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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/8/2023 and 7/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 13 and 19 recite “directs a supply of the energy to the location using the vehicle” objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6, 13 and 19 recite “directs a supply of the energy to the location using the vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (“the energy”) in the claim, since “a supply of the energy” is referring to the vehicle of claims 1, 8 and 15. Suggested language is “directs a second supply of energy to the location using the vehicle” to better differentiate the supply of energy from the another vehicle versus a supply of energy from the vehicle of claims 1, 8 and 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “determining, by a vehicle, a severity and a length related to a predicted outage”. Although the specification recites severity with respect to a power outage and “Upon predicting a severe outage” (para [0077]), the specification does not describe what would be considered a severe/high severity vs. low severity vs. no severity/not severe power outage. The specification also does not describe how a severity of a power outage is determined, what would be considered a severe power outage, and thus does not describe how the power outage would be determined to be a high severe vs. low severe vs. non-severe power outage. For example, the specification does not describe if a duration/length of a power outage is what would determine a power outage to be a severe vs. non-severe power outage. Additionally, it is noted that the specification does not describe how a vehicle determines a severity of a power outage.
Claims not specifically addressed fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 are 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “determining, by a vehicle, a severity and a length related to a predicted outage”. The term “severity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “severity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification merely recites the term “severity” with respect to a power outage and also recites in para [0077] “Upon predicting a severe outage…”. However, the specification does not provide a standard as to what is considered severe vs not severe power outage. Additionally, the claim language does not indicate what a severe outage would entail. As such, this term is indefinite. It is not clear what is considered a severity related to an outage, i.e. what would be considered severe/high severity vs. low severity vs. no severity/not severe power outage. Since the claim language also recites determining a length related to predicted outage, does a length/duration of a power outage determine what would be considered a severe power outage vs. a low severe vs. a non-severe power outage? Please clarify. Therefore, the scope of the limitation “determines a severity related to a predicted outage” is so unclear that it cannot be examined on the merits at this time.
Claims not specifically addressed are indefinite due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18 and 20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 2022/0080852).
Yu et al. discloses a system comprising:
a processor ([0021]);
a memory, wherein the processor and the memory are communicably coupled, wherein the processor ([0021]):
determines, by a vehicle, a length related to a predicted outage at a location ([0027]);
determines, by the vehicle, an optimal charge of a battery of the vehicle prior to the predicted outage, wherein the optimal charge is based on the length ([0027], [0032]);
compares, by the vehicle, a current charge of the battery to the optimal charge ([0003], [0033]); and
charges, by the vehicle, the battery to the optimal charge when the current charge is below the optimal charge ([0003], [0033]).
Yu et al. additionally discloses a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for performing the processor steps above ([0021]).
The method is inherent to the system.
With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, Yu et al discloses providing the optimal charge from the battery to the location, in response to the predicted outage occurring ([0003], [0033]).
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18, Yu et al. discloses determining the optimal charge of the battery of the vehicle is related to an energy consumption at the location ([0027], [0030]).
With respect to claims 5 and 12, Yu et al. discloses in response to the location including an on-premises energy storage device, supplying energy to the location during the predicted outage using the on-premises energy storage device; monitoring a state-of-charge of the on-premises energy storage device while the on- premises energy storage device is supplying the energy to the location; and in response to the state-of-charge of the on-premises energy storage device approaching zero, supplying the energy to the location using the vehicle ([0032]).
With respect to claims 7, 14 and 20, Yu et al. discloses updating, by the vehicle, the length related to the predicted outage during the predicted outage; and in response to the length increasing, turning off power to at least one device at the location ([0027]).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Diamond et al. (US 2023/0094216).
Diamond et al. discloses a system comprising:
a processor ([0054]);
a memory, wherein the processor and the memory are communicably coupled, wherein the processor ([0054]):
determines, by a vehicle, a length related to a predicted outage at a location ([0066], [0067], [0070]-[0072]);
determines, by the vehicle, an optimal charge of a battery of the vehicle prior to the predicted outage, wherein the optimal charge is based on the length ([0067], [0070], Figs. 4-6);
compares, by the vehicle, a current charge of the battery to the optimal charge ([0067], [0070]); and
charges, by the vehicle, the battery to the optimal charge when the current charge is below the optimal charge ([0039]-[0042], [0067], [0070], Figs. 4-6]).
Diamond et al. additionally discloses a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for performing the processor steps above ([0057]).
The method is inherent to the system.
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17, Diamond et al. discloses determining, by the vehicle, that the length will be altered; and responsive to the length increasing, providing an additional charge to the location from the battery of the vehicle ([0067])
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18, Diamond et al. discloses determining the optimal charge of the battery of the vehicle is related to an energy consumption at the location ([0066]).
Examiner’s Remarks
With respect to claim(s) 6, 13 and 19, the examiner makes no prior art rejection. However, these claims are not allowable pursuant to the claim objection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, rejection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejection.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights