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 § 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 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.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, the recitation of “request to join” is vague and indefinite because it is not clear of who the “request” being broadcast to.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are also rejected because they are, directly or indirectly, depending from rejected claims 1, 9 and 17.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “accumulating, by the system, electricity” is vague and indefinite is vague and indefinite because it is unclear of how the system accumulates electricity. Moreover, the recitation of “intermediate battery” is unclear of how the “intermediate battery” is relate to the “system”.
The dependent claims 3-5 are also rejected because they are, directly or indirectly, depending from rejected claim 2.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 11 and 13, the recitation of “full” is unclear because it is a relative term. For example, the full percentage for some of the batteries is not the same for the others.
The dependent claim 12 is also rejected because they are, directly or indirectly, depending from rejected claim 11.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the recitation of “communication with grid” is vague and indefinite because “grid” is not clearly defined.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of “a vehicle component that accumulates electricity” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear of how the vehicle component accumulates electricity. Moreover, the recitation of “intermediate battery” is unclear of how the “intermediate battery” is relate to the “system”.
Claims 2 and 10 recite the limitation "the charging station" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims 3-5 are also rejected because they are, directly or indirectly, depending from rejected claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 14-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keefe (US 2010/0079004, cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Keefe teaches a computer-implemented method (figs. 2 and 4), comprising: receiving, by a system (EVMS, [0025]) comprising a processor, a message from one or more vehicles (50, [0032]), wherein the message comprising an indication to discharge energy (step 430, [0048]); adding, by the system, the one or more vehicles to form a cluster of vehicles that provided the indication to discharge energy (step 440, [0048]); and broadcasting, by the system, request to join the cluster of vehicles upon formation the cluster (step 450, [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Keefe further teaches extracting, by the system, payment information from one or more vehicles connected to the charging station; and transmitting, by the system, payment suing the payment information to all cars that joined the cluster (figs. 5, 6, [0032]-[0035] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 7, Keefe further teaches wherein the message comprises vehicle information, amount of electricity for discharging, payment information, health of the battery, amount of time available to discharge ([0032]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Keefe further teaches wherein the request comprises a charging station identification, a charging station location, a payment offer information ([0075] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Keefe teaches a system (fig. 2), comprising a memory that stores computer executable components ([0025]); a processor (inherently includes in a EVMS, [0025]) that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprises: a communication component (80) that receives a message from one or more vehicles (50, [0032]), wherein the message comprising an indication to discharge energy (step 430, [0048]); a grid component (14) that adds the one or more vehicles to form a cluster of vehicles that provided the indication to discharge energy (step 440, [0048]); and the communication component that broadcasts a request to join the cluster of vehicles upon formation the cluster (step 450, [0049]).
Regarding claim 14, Keefe further teaches wherein the computer executable component further comprise: a vehicle component that extracts payment information from one or more vehicles connected to the charging station; and transmitting, by the system, payment suing the payment information to all cars that joined the cluster (figs. 5, 6, [0032]-[0035] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 15, Keefe further teaches wherein the message comprises vehicle information, amount of electricity for discharging, payment information, health of the battery, amount of time available to discharge ([0032]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 16, Keefe further teaches wherein the request comprises a charging station identification, a charging station location, a payment offer information ([0075] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 17, Keefe teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium ([0025]) , comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor (which inherently includes in EVMS), facilitate performance of operations, comprising: receiving, a message from one or more vehicles (50, [0032]), wherein the message comprising an indication to discharge energy (step 430, [0048]); adding the one or more vehicles to form a cluster of vehicles that provided the indication to discharge energy (step 440, [0048]); and broadcasting request to join the cluster of vehicles upon formation the cluster (step 450, [0049]).
Regarding claim 19, Keefe further teaches extracting payment information from one or more vehicles connected to the charging station; and transmitting, by the system, payment suing the payment information to all cars that joined the cluster (figs. 5, 6, [0032]-[0035] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 20, Keefe further teaches wherein the message comprises vehicle information, amount of electricity for discharging, payment information, health of the battery, amount of time available to discharge ([0032]-[0037]) and wherein the request comprises a charging station information, a charging station location, a payment offer information ([0075] and [0076]).
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) 2-5, 10-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keefe in view of Beaston et al. (US 2017/0106764).
Regarding claims 2-5, 10-13 and 18, Keefe teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Keefe further teaches transmitting a notification indicating an amount of discharged by the vehicle ([0042] and [0043]) except for an intermediate battery and further limitations as claimed.
However, Beaston teaches one or more vehicles (102) connected to a charging station (103) and storing the electricity into an intermediate battery (106), comprising an indication that the intermediate battery is full (fig. 1A and [0058]).
In view of Beaston’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 Keefe by incorporating the teaching as taught by Beaston so that power can be stored in the battery energy storage system for later use (see Beaston: [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Alarcon et al. (US 12,606,043); Gadoury et al. (US 2024/0203167); Furukawa et al. (US 2023/0138275); Hishida et al. (US 11,618,336) and Wild et al. (US 10,769,555) are cited because they are related to system and method for charging/discharging electric vehicle.
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