DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that:
Paulick does not disclose or suggest an electronic computing device receiving usage information from a plurality of motor vehicles, the usage information including "power consumption of the respective one of the plurality of motor vehicles and a time stamp for the power consumption by the respective one of the plurality of motor vehicles" and that Paulick used measuring sensors 201-204 to collect usage information.
In response to applicant’s arguments:
Using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, claim 11 seemly stated that “receiving, by an electronic computing device, usage information from a plurality of motor vehicles …” in which according to fig. 1 and paragraphs 66-67 of Paulick is clearly teaches the computing device 140, which is part of controller 100, received electrical flow data from distribution 20 which includes, for example, vehicles V1 and V2 regardless of whether via sensors 201-204 or directly as to paragraph 109-110 of Paulick since each of the vehicle/consumer profile (PV1, PV2) was also received.
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.
Claims 11-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paulick et al. (of record, see IDS filed 1/18/2024, DE 202019102368 U1 using English equivalent US2022/000525552 A1, hereinafter Paulick).
Regarding claim 11
Paulick teaches a method comprising: capturing an input of a provider of an electrical grid, wherein the input defines a geometrical map in the electrical grid (see fig. 3-6; par. 16-20 and par 101-104, GIS, graphical objects);
Paulick further teaches receiving, by an electronic computing device (see fig. 1; computing unit 140 which is part of controller 100), usage information from plurality of motor vehicles in the geometrical map in a time frame, wherein the usage information includes power consumption of the respective one of the plurality of motor vehicles (V1, V2) and a time stamp for the power consumption by the respective one of the plurality of motor vehicles (see fig. 1, par. 66, “The computing unit 140 is arranged to receive a request RQ via the communication interface 110 for outputting a power flow in the distribution network 20.” “In addition to selecting a time period, the computing unit 140 is set up for measurement values M with a timestamp within the time period.”); and transferring, by the electronic computing device to the provider (computing device 930), the usage information received from the plurality of motor vehicles (see par. 67, “the calculation results are immediately provided in the server 160 of the controller 100 for transmission via the communication interface 110” where from fig. 1 the communication interface 110 is connected to provider 910, 920, 930).
Regarding claim 12
Paulick teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the electronic computing device aggregates the power consumption of the plurality of motor vehicles and the usage information transferred to the provider includes the aggregated power consumption of the plurality of motor vehicles (see par. 67, computing device 140 gather and calculate data from distribution 20 then transmit to provider 910, 920, 930 via communication interface 140).
Regarding claim 14
Paulick teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the time frame is predefined by the provider (see par. 103-105, selection can be made by user from the user interface which includes a point in time to get a calculated result).
Regarding claim 19
Paulick teaches a non-transitory computer program product comprising program code, which when executed by an electronic computing device (see fig. 1; computing unit 140 which is part of controller 100), causes the electronic computing device to: capture an input of a provider of an electrical grid (910, 920, 930), wherein the input defines a geometrical map in the electrical grid (see fig. 3-6; par. 16-20 and par 101-104, GIS, graphical objects); receiving usage information from plurality of motor vehicles in the geometrical map in a time frame, wherein the usage information includes power consumption of the respective one of the plurality of motor vehicles (V1, V2) and a time stamp for the power consumption by the respective one of the plurality of motor vehicles (see fig. 1, par. 66, “The computing unit 140 is arranged to receive a request RQ via the communication interface 110 for outputting a power flow in the distribution network 20.” “In addition to selecting a time period, the computing unit 140 is set up for measurement values M with a timestamp within the time period.”); and transferring the usage information received from the plurality of motor vehicles to the provider (see par. 67, “the calculation results are immediately provided in the server 160 of the controller 100 for transmission via the communication interface 110” where from fig. 1 the communication interface 110 is connected to provider 910, 920, 930).
Regarding claim 20
Paulick teaches an electronic computing device configured to: capture an input of a provider of an electrical grid (910, 920, 930), wherein the input defines a geometrical map in the electrical grid (see fig. 3-6; par. 16-20 and par 101-104, GIS, graphical objects); receiving usage information from plurality of motor vehicles in the geometrical map in a time frame, wherein the usage information includes power consumption of the respective one of the plurality of motor vehicles (V1, V2) and a time stamp for the power consumption by the respective one of the plurality of motor vehicles (see fig. 1, par. 66, “The computing unit 140 is arranged to receive a request RQ via the communication interface 110 for outputting a power flow in the distribution network 20.” “In addition to selecting a time period, the computing unit 140 is set up for measurement values M with a timestamp within the time period.”); and transferring the usage information received from the plurality of motor vehicles to the provider (see par. 67, “the calculation results are immediately provided in the server 160 of the controller 100 for transmission via the communication interface 110” and from fig. 1 the communication interface 110 is connected to provider 910, 920, 930).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulick in view of Penilla et al. US 10714955 (of record, see IDS 1/18/2024, hereinafter Penilla).
Regarding claim 13
Paulick teaches the method of claim 11, but is silent on wherein each motor vehicle of the plurality of motor vehicles is anonymized before transferring the usage information to the provider.
In a related field of electrical power usage, Penilla teaches personal of users are protected and separated for each motor vehicle of the plurality of motor vehicles before information is transferred (see col. 17 lines 34-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have private information separated and anonymized when data is shared as taught by Penilla included with the system of Paulick so that personal data of each vehicle owner to enable unification and provide improved sharing of data that is not confidential (see col. 17 lines 34-37).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulick in view of Merkle et al. (DE 102017122283B3 using English equivalent US 11,255,882 hereinafter Merkle).
Regarding claims 15 and 16
Paulick teaches the method of claim 11, but is silent on wherein an amount of possible energy that could be charged to the plurality of motor vehicles in the geometrical map is transferred to the provider; and wherein a possible average or maximum power depending on charging modes in the geometrical map is transferred to the provider.
In a related field of energy monitoring and distribution, Merkle teaches the amount of possible energy usage in each of the distribution center (include charging stations for electric vehicles, see col. 1 lines 55-62) is collected and transferred to a central collection point (see col. 13 lines 38-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the claimed invention to include the transfer of energy usage information to a collection point of Merkle to the system of Paulick for the purpose of preventing shortages in the provision of services at the distribution stations (see Merkle col. 2 line 4-17).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulick in view of Schweitzer, III et al. (US 2011/0251732 A1) hereinafter Schweitzer.
Regarding claim 17
Paulick teach the method of claim 11, but is silent on wherein a forecast of a future power consumption is determined by the electronic computing device and the forecast of the future power consumption is transferred to the provider.
In a related field of distribution of electric power loads, Schweitzer teaches predicting behavior of loads connected to an electric power distribution system to optimize future power consumption of the electric power distribution system (see par. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the claimed invention to include predicting future loads consumption of Schweitzer with the system of Paulick because it would provide to optimize control strategy based on load dynamics (see Schweitzer par. 24).
Regarding claim 18
Paulick and Schweitzer teaches the method of claim 17, and Paulick further teaches wherein the forecast of the future power consumption is determined depending on future weather in the geometrical map, a day, the time frame, or navigational routes of the plurality of motor vehicles (see par. 57).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 572‐3689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday ‐ Thursday 7 AM ‐ 4 PM.
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.
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.
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights