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 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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 6/17/2026, where claims 19-11, 17, and 20 are amended, and claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-9, filed on 6/17/2026, with respect to previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, have been fully considered. Applicant argued that Zarrilli does not teach every limitation in the combination as currently amended in independent claims 1 and 11. The arguments are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, the instant claims are currently rejected under new grounds.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, that all dependent claims are patentably distinguished over the cited prior art at least in view of the dependency from their respective independent claims, and requests that the rejections for all dependent claims be reconsidered and withdrew for the reasons argued above. However, their respective independent claims are now rejected under new grounds in view of the amendment and thus the dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarrilli et al., (US 2024/0375537 A1) (hereinafter Zarrilli) in view of Rowe et al., (US 2017/0214248 A1) (hereinafter Rowe).
Referring to claim 1, Zarrilli teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, information indicative of load metrics relating to a power grid… (¶ [0007], “determining…based at least on…information on available power”. ¶ [0014], “The information on available power may comprise information about power suppliable by one or more of: a power grid”.);
identifying, by the one or more processors, metrics for a plurality of charging machines to be charged at a worksite (¶ [0007], “determining a charging profile for charging at least one electric vehicle via at least one charger based at least on a characteristic of a battery of the at least one electric vehicle”. ¶ [0069], “Some embodiments may be for managing the charging of a set or fleet of electric vehicles (EVs) 6.” ¶ [0074], “the electric vehicle fleet may comprise a fleet of buses…The charging location may be any suitable charging location, for example a depot”.);
determining, by the one or more processors, for each charging machine of the plurality of charging machines, a charging rate for the charging machine at the worksite, according to the metrics and the load metrics of the power grid (¶ [0007], “providing an output to control charging by the respective charger in accordance with the determined charging profile.”); and
controlling, by the one or more processors, a plurality of chargers at the worksite, according to the charging rate associated with a corresponding charging machine (¶ [0030], “The output to control charging may control one or more of when the at least one electric vehicle is charged and a rate at which the at least one electric vehicle is charged.”)
Zarrilli teaches the limitations above. However, Zarrilli does not explicitly teach include at least reactive power indicative of electrical power that oscillates between a source and a load without being consumed as active power.
Rowe teaches include at least reactive power indicative of electrical power that oscillates between a source and a load without being consumed as active power (¶ [0008], “When sufficient energy is available during microgrid operation, energy storage resources (such as batteries) can be charged based on their droop characteristics. However, the maximum rate of charging for the energy storage resources will be reduced when the energy storage resources are providing reactive power for one or more loads, thereby reducing the economic value.” ¶ [0029], “when the system 100 is operating as a microgrid and sufficient energy is available such that the power converters 102-1 through 102-N are generating power and the AC batteries 180 are operating in a charge mode (i.e., the AC batteries 180 are charging), the AC batteries 180 may still be supplying reactive current as required by one of more loads. In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, the AC battery reactive current levels are minimized during such operating conditions when the AC batteries 180 are being charged at or near their maximum operating current, as described in detail further below. Such limiting of the AC battery reactive current prioritizes active power flow and ensures that the charge rate of the AC batteries 180 is maximized during such operating conditions such that the AC batteries 180 can achieve optimum charging and thereby increase the energy harvest of the system 100.” ¶ [0030], “In order to determine when the AC battery reactive current is to be limited, each AC battery's controller 114 (i.e., a droop module of the controller 114 as described below with respect to FIG. 2) compares the AC battery's apparent current—the magnitude of the vector sum of the real (i.e., active) and reactive current components—to a threshold as described in detail further below. If the apparent current exceeds the threshold, a limit is imposed on the AC battery's reactive current. By imposing such a limit, the apparent current is maintained within a desired operating region without adjusting the active current.”)
Zarrilli and Rowe are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface with battery charger and power grid (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Zarrilli and Rowe before them to modify the method of control scheduling of charging EVs of Zarrilli to incorporate the function of including reactive power information of Rowe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Rowe (¶ [0018]-[0041]), because the function of including reactive power information does not depend on the method of control scheduling of charging EVs. That is the function of including reactive power information performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to prioritize active power flow when charging battery as suggested by Rowe (Abstract).
Referring to claim 2, Zarrilli further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the information indicative of the load metrics is received from the plurality of chargers (¶ [0127], “The apparatus 4 may collect data from the EVs and the chargers. The data collected comprises one or more of:” ¶ [0128], “Which electric vehicle 6 is attached to a respective charger 2 (for example identity information for the EV)”. ¶ [0129], “The state of charge of the battery of the electric vehicle 6”. ¶ [0130], “The charging/discharging power rate of the battery electric vehicle 6”. ¶ [0104], “Information from the EVs 6 are provided to the apparatus 4. This may be…via the respective charger.”) and from a grid controller associated with the power grid (¶ [0131], “The apparatus 4 may receive data from a power grid supplier. This may be in response to a request from the apparatus 4. This data may comprise one or more of:” ¶ [0132], “An amount of power the system can provide to the power grid supplier (where supported)”).
Referring to claim 3, Zarrilli further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the load metrics comprise one or more measurements corresponding to a demand in power at the worksite, wherein the demand indicating an increase in power at the worksite or a decrease in power at the worksite (¶ [0139], “The apparatus 4 may receive data relating to a microgrid and/or local power supply.” ¶ [0140], “The data received from the one or more microgrid entities may be information about energy availability both currently and for the future horizon.” ¶ [0084], “Some charging locations may, at least partially, have their own local power supply such as a microgrid.”)
Referring to claim 4, Zarrilli further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the charging rate for the charging machine comprises a negative charging rate, and wherein the controlling the charger according to the negative charging rate comprises discharging the corresponding charging machine to the power grid (¶ [0077], “Some embodiments may provide “smart charging” strategies, which may allow the planning and executing of the EV charging operation by exploiting both the system and user flexibility…Such mechanisms may range from simply turning on and off the charging process and possibly increasing or decreasing the rate of charging, namely unidirectional vehicles' control (V1G), to the challenging bidirectional vehicle-to-grid (V2G), which allows the vehicle to provide back services to the grid in a discharge mode.”)
Referring to claim 5, Zarrilli further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the metric for the plurality of charging machines comprises one or more measurements corresponding to a supply of charge with the corresponding charging machine (¶ [0025], “The determining may be further based on a power supply limit associated with one or more of the chargers.”)
Referring to claim 6, Zarrilli further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the power grid comprises a microgrid (¶ [0089], “The grid may be the main grid and/or a microgrid.”), wherein the one or more processors are of a worksite controller, and wherein controlling the plurality of chargers at the worksite comprises transmitting, by the one or more processors of the worksite controller, one or more signals to a charge/discharge controller, to cause the charge/discharge controller to transmit one or more signals to the plurality of charging machines (¶ [0093], “The apparatus 4 may control the chargers 2—when they are charging and/or the rate at which they charge a battery of an EV.” ¶ [0099], “The apparatus 4 is configured to provide an output in accordance with the determined charging profile…The output may comprise one or more control signals which are directly or indirectly provided to the chargers 2. The output from the apparatus 4 is used to control charging by the chargers of electric vehicles.”)
Referring to claim 7, Zarrilli further teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising transmitting, by the charge/discharge controller, one or more signals to the plurality of chargers, wherein the one or more signals indicating to charge the charging machine or discharge the charging machine (¶ [0089], “Some embodiments may control when a V2G vehicle is charged from a grid and when, if at all, the V2G vehicle discharges back to the grid.”)
Referring to claim 8, Zarrilli further teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
determining, by the worksite controller, the charging rate for the charging machine at the worksite (¶ [0037], “The information on available power may comprise information about power suppliable by one or more of…one or more local power sources.” ¶ [0153], “an apparatus 4 which determines a charging profile which controls the timing of the charging, how much charging is done and optionally the rate of charging of the electric vehicles to control the battery recharging.”), based on a renewable availability from the microgrid, wherein the renewable availability including at least one of wind turbines, photovoltaic (PV) panels, generator sets, or hydropower (¶ [0084], “Some charging locations may, at least partially, have their own local power supply such as a microgrid. The local power supply may be provided by one or more renewable energy sources, for example a PV (photo voltaic) installation or windfarm”. ¶ [0140], “The data received from the one or more microgrid entities may be information about energy availability both currently and for the future horizon.”); and
determining, by the worksite controller, the charging rate for the charging machine at the worksite, based on an efficiency metric for the microgrid to maximize the efficiency of the microgrid (¶ [0149], “The apparatus 4 may determine a charging profile which schedules charging activities while satisfying equipment physical constraints and/or the needs of the charging location operator…Examples of operator's needs may be power peak and/or site efficiency.”)
Referring to claim 9, Zarrilli further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining a charging rate for the charging machine at the worksite further comprises receiving, by the one or more processors, battery metrics of the charging machine, wherein the battery metrics indicating at least one of a state of charge, a state of health, a voltage, charging time, or safety parameters (¶ [0031], “determine a charging profile for charging at least one electric vehicle via at least one charger based at least on a characteristic of a respective battery of the at least one electric vehicle”. ¶ [0127], “The apparatus 4 may collect data from the EVs and the chargers. The data collected comprises one or more of:” ¶ [0129], “The state of charge of the battery of the electric vehicle 6”. ¶ [0104], “Information from the EVs 6 are provided to the apparatus 4. This may be…via the respective charger.”)
Referring to claim 10, Zarrilli further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein controlling a plurality of chargers at the worksite further comprises receiving, by the one or more processors, a schedule, the schedule indicating one or more gaps in operation of the charging machines (¶ [0010], “According to a further embodiment the availability of the at least one electric vehicle may be based at least on one of an operation schedule, location information of the at least one electric vehicle and real time location information of the at least one electric vehicle.” ¶ [0011], “The operation schedule may provide information as to when one or more electric vehicles are to arrive and/or information as to when one or more electric vehicles are to leave a charging location where one or more chargers are provided.”)
Regarding claims 11-20, these claims recite the data processing system that performs the steps of the method of claims 1-10 respectively; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2016/0204629 (Tsurumaru) – discloses storage battery system operate based on charge/discharge request(s).
US 2021/0313805 (Morishima) – discloses power control system that control a demand-supply balance of electric power.
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 MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights