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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,929,621 in view of Harty and Konishi.
Although the claims are not identical, the claims are directed to a control unit is configured to control an output of the conversion circuit such that a received power from the power grid becomes a target value during charging the vehicle energy storage apparatus by the charging/discharging unit, and to change the target value of the received power based on a predicted value of a power generation amount of the distributed power supply and a predicted value of a power consumption of a demand facility.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harty in view of Konishi (20220060026)
Re Claims 1, 9 and 10; Harty discloses a charging/discharging system (10) for a distributed power supply being interconnectable with a power grid (30), the charging/discharging system comprising:
a conversion circuit (70, 82);
a control unit (14) configured to control the conversion circuit; and
a charging/discharging unit (50) connected to the power grid (30) and the conversion circuit (70 and 82) and being capable of charging electricity to a vehicle energy storage apparatus (100, Par 0016 teaches the vehicle has a storage apparatus),
wherein the control unit (14) is configured to control an output of the conversion circuit (70, 80) such that a received power from the power grid (30) becomes a target value during charging the vehicle energy storage apparatus by the charging/discharging unit. (Par 0026, 28)
Harty does not disclose wherein the control unit is configured to change the target value of the received power based on a predicted value of a power generation amount of the distributed power supply and a predicted value of power consumption of a demand facility
However, Konishi discloses wherein the control unit (EMS, 10) is configured to change the target value (reverse power flow) of the received power based on a predicted value of a power generation amount of the distributed power supply and a predicted value of power consumption of a demand facility. (Par 0090-95)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have change the target value of the received power based on a predicted value of a power generation amount of the distributed power supply and a predicted value of power consumption of a demand facility in order to provide the required power needed to operate the load effectively.
Re Claim 2; Harty discloses further comprising an energy storage unit (40) being capable of discharging electricity to the charging/discharging unit via the conversion circuit. (Fig. 1)
Re Claim 3; Harty discloses wherein the control unit includes a communication unit being capable of communicating with the charging/discharging unit. (Par 0019, 29)
Re Claim 4; Harty discloses wherein the charging/discharging unit acquires or estimates a state of charge of the vehicle energy storage apparatus. (Par 0019, 29).
Re Claim 7; Harty discloses further comprising a housing that houses the conversion circuit, the control unit, and the charging/discharging unit, wherein a charging/discharging cable (62) extends from the housing. (Fig. 1).
Re Claims 11, 13 and 15; Konishi discloses wherein the charging of the vehicle energy storage apparatus is assisted by the output of the conversion circuit (116) to suppress an increase in the received power and to control the received power from the power grid to the target value. (Par 0090-95)
Claim(s) 5, 8, 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harty in view of Konishi (20220060026) and further in view of Mrlik et al (US 20190168630)
Re Claim 5; Harty discloses wherein a communication unit.
Harty does not disclose the communication unit is configured to transmit information that includes a state of the conversion circuit and information that includes a state of the charging/discharging unit to an information processing apparatus.
However, Mrlik discloses the communication unit is configured to transmit information that includes a state of the conversion circuit and information that includes a state of the charging/discharging unit to an information processing apparatus. (Fig. 6, Par 32, 40)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have communicated the state of the components to an information processing apparatus in order to monitor operating data regarding the EV charging systems and to determine control actions to be implemented by the EV charging systems as needed.
Re Claim 8; Harty disclosure a power converter as shown above.
Harty does not disclose further comprising a first converter circuit, a second converter circuit, and a third converter circuit that are connected to the conversion circuit, wherein a distributed power supply is connected to the first converter circuit, the energy storage unit is connected to the second converter circuit, and a charging/discharging cable is connected to the third converter circuit.
further comprising a first converter circuit (103), a second converter circuit (DC-DC converter Low voltage), and a third converter circuit (106) that are connected to the conversion circuit, wherein a distributed power supply (grid) is connected to the first converter circuit (174), the energy storage unit (200) is connected to the second converter circuit (DC-DC low), and a charging/discharging cable (116) is connected to the third converter circuit (106). (Fig. 6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have had this arrangement of components in order to provide power from a plurality of sources to charge the vehicle effectively.
Re Claims 12, 14 and 16; Mrlik discloses wherein a plurality of the charging/discharging units are provided at a charging/discharging station, and a power conditioner comprising the conversion circuit and the control unit is arranged adjacent to the plurality of the charging/discharging units. (Fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 7-16 under 103 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 Mrlik
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
03/02/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836