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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 3/07/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 16 are independent claims.
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.
Claim 1 and 16 recites the limitation "where a parent EV charger has a cellular modem as well as a Wi-Fi modem or an Ethernet port or another network communication interface, which can be used to provide a network connectivity to a children EV charger connected to the parent EV charger". It is unclear what "which" is referring to.
Claim 1 and 16 line 6 and 7 recites the limitation "wherein network capabilities can also serve as a local connectivity". It is unclear what the "network capabilities" is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line 15-17 and claim 16 line 13-15 recites the limitation "wherein in a group of parent/children EV chargers, two or more EV chargers with parent capabilities are included, both from cellular connectivity point of view, as well as from local load balancing management point of view”. The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice.
Claim 1 line15 and claim 16 line 13, recites the limitation "wherein in a group of parent/children EV chargers". It is unclear whether "a group of parent/children EV chargers" are a subset of "a plurality of EV chargers". Examiner suggests "a group of parent/children EV chargers of the plurality of the EV chargers".
Claim 1 line 16 and claim 16 line 14: The terms "parent capability", "cellular connectivity point of view", "local load balancing management point of view" are unclear.
Claim 1 line 18 and claim 16 line 16 recites the limitation "one EV charger". It is unclear whether "one EV charger" is a subset of "a group of parent/children EV chargers". Examiner suggests "one EV charger of a group of parent/children EV chargers". Also, in line 18 - "while other", it is unclear what others are referring to.
Claim 1 line 18-22 and claim 16 line 16-20: "wherein one EV charger is initially configured as a primary parent, while others are designated as backup parent EV chargers such that EV chargers that are backup parents maintain cellular (or another wide area network (WAN) connection) connectivity, but connect to the primary parent's local area network (LAN) through either Wi-Fi, Ethernet, RS-485, or some other local area connection mechanism". This limitation in the claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice.
Claim 1 line 20 and claim 16 line 18 said " parent maintain cellular (or another wide area network (WAN) connection) connectivity". It is unclear what the applicant intended to convey by use of parenthesis.
Claim 1 line 22 and claim 16 line 18: "some other local connection mechanism". It is unclear what is covered by the "some other local connection mechanism"
Claim 2 line 1-3 and claim 17 line 25-28 recite the limitation "a first variant of an algorithm in that assumption is that all parent EV chargers are able to communicate with all EV chargers in the group in case they not only serve as a WAN connection to a network, but also through a LAN established by that parent EV." It is unclear which parent is meant by "that parent EV" as claim 2 recites “all parent” and claim 1 recites “a parent EV charger” and “the parent EV charger”. In addition, it is unclear whether “that parent EV” means “that parent EV charger”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "all EV chargers capable of being parents periodically (every X seconds) exchange messages indicating: a) strength of their WAN connection b) level of integrity of their local load management processor." It is unclear what the applicant intended to convey by use of parenthesis around “every X seconds”.
Claim 4 line 12 recites the limitation “(if relevant, e.g. Wi-Fi SSID + Password)”. The phrase "if relevant, e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 line 10 recites the limitation "considerably better… (e.g. Excellent strength vs Medium strength)” " which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite since the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree.
Claim 5 line 16 recites the limitation "the new parent”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation since there is no earlier recitation of “a new parent”.
Claim 5 line 18 recites the limitation "all EV chargers". It is unclear whether “all EV chargers are a subset of “a plurality of EV chargers” recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a similar algorithm”. It is unclear what the algorithm is similar to. Also, the limitation “the group" which lacks of antecedent basis since there is no earlier recitation of “a group”.
Claim 7 and 17, recites the limitation “a second variant of the algorithm in that assumption is that not all parents are able to connect with all EV chargers in the group necessarily, and wherein a Wi-Fi Access Point function remains in an original primary parent (which was physically deployed in a central location that can reach all children, by definition, during the installation of the EV chargers), while a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) server and WAN connectivity functions move to a new primary parent, in case of need.” The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice.
Claim 7 line 26 and claim 17 line 1, recites the limitation "assumption is that not all parents are able to connect with all EV chargers in the group necessarily". It is unclear what the applicant meant to convey by the use of the term “necessarily”.
Claim 7 line 1 and claim 17 line 3, recites the limitation "(which was physically deployed in a central location that can deployed in a central location that can reach all children. by definition. during the installation of the EV chargers)". It is unclear what the applicant meant to convey by the use of the parenthesis.
Claim 8 recite the limitation "the new primary parent is to indicate to an outgoing parent it needs to continue to perform...”. It is unclear how a “need” can be conveyed.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein it is possible that in a given group some EV chargers centrally located allow the first variant, while EV chargers located at edges only allow the second variant such that for each EV charger to be aware of whether it can or cannot serve as a hotspot for all other EV chargers in the group, once the group is initially configured, an installer sends a “check group coverage” command to the group and once this command is in place, the EV chargers attempt to serve as the hotspot and connect to all other EV chargers in the group in a serial order, wherein an order of EV chargers is determined by a primary parent, wherein they are ordered by strength of a connection between an original primary parent and each of the EV chargers in the group, and wherein strength in the case of a Wi-Fi connection is measured in dBm”. The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “w herein each EV charger attempts to be a hotspot, and then waits for each child to connect to it and if all EV chargers in an original group manage to connect to an EV charger testing its hotspot capabilities, the hotspot marks itself as the first variant capable, wherein given that every EV charger can connect to an original primary parent, the original primary parent controls a mapping algorithm, either by communicating to the EV charger that is performing a hotspot function and to a next EV charger in the group (if they are connected to each other) to move to a next step in the mapping, or by taking control and becoming the hotspot again in between mapping steps (since it is the only EV charger that is known to be able to connect to all other EV chargers by definition)”. The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice.
Claim 11 recites the term "best cellular connectivity". The term "best" 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. Also, the term “need” in the phrase "need to leave their modems turned on". It is unclear what the applicant meant to convey by the use of the term “need” as the term “need” is not an actual required step in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "these two parents." While parent claim 11 which claim 12 depends on recites "more than 2 parents" it is unclear what “these” is in reference to. Claim 12 also recites the limitation “turn on its radio”. It is unclear what “its” is referring to.
Claims 13 line 12 recites "a second EV charger and a third EV charger." Parent claim 1 which claim 13 depends on recites a "plurality" and a "parent" and "children" EV chargers. As such, it is unclear whether “a second EV charger and a third EV charger” are a subset of “a plurality of the EV chargers”.
Claim 13 line 16 recites the limitation "a second cellular modem and a third cellular modem are disabled." However, claim 1 requires that backup parents "maintain cellular... connectivity." Because a dependent claim must further limit the independent claim, it cannot contradict it. One cannot "maintain" connectivity while the modem is "disabled"
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0305927, filed on 9/29/2022 (hereinafter Haas) in view of Edger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0084874, filed on 03/27/2014 (hereinafter Edger).
As for Independent claim 1 and 16: Haas discloses
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system comprising”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard)
“a plurality of EV chargers deployed in a parent-child configuration”
(Haas [0022] discloses “EVSE network 122 is modelled using a parent-child structure/configuration”; Haas discloses [0033] In a network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure, an EVSE network 213 includes an EVSE parent 215 and EVSE children”)
“where a parent EV charger has a cellular modem as well as a Wi-Fi modem or an Ethernet port or another network communication interface”
(Haas [0034,0035], Fig. [2-4] discloses “The EVSE parent 215 is connected to the remote server being the utility/EVSP/cloud server 220 via a wireless cellular/Wi-Fi connection”; [0035] “The EVSE parent 215 is connected to an EVSE child 225(1) via a second MODBUS 485 serial/ethernet connection”)
“which can be used to provide a network connectivity to a children EV charger connected to the parent EV charger”
(Haas [0021], Fig. 1, [0024] discloses “The gateway 110 receives load balancing 145, demand response commands 147, charging profiles 150, authorization responses 152 from the remote server 133, based on which the gateway 110 controls a charging flow for all EVSEs 112 in the local network 137. The gateway 110 includes cellular/Wi-Fi to serial/ethernet translation”; [0024] gateway 110 that consists of one or more of the listed devices—EVSE parent.”. Thus the “EVSE parent” provides the “EVSE children” access to the “remote server 133”)
“wherein network capabilities can also serve as a local connectivity method allowing the parent EV charger to serve as a local load balancing management controller to the children EV charger connected to it,”
(Haas [0021]-[0026], Fig. 1 discloses “The gateway 110 receives load balancing 145, demand response commands 147, charging profiles 150, authorization responses 152 from the remote server 133, based on which the gateway 110 controls a charging flow for all EVSEs 112 in the local network 137. The gateway 110 includes cellular/Wi-Fi to serial/ethernet translation”; Haas [0024] “gateway 110 that consists of one or more of the listed devices—EVSE parent”, and Haas [0026] “The gateway 110 can handle one or more of the following functions... Initial charger setup, System configuration and network set-up...")
“cause each EV charger to: provide a network connectivity to another EV charger”
(Haas [0021]-[0024], Fig. 1 discloses “The gateway 110 receives load balancing 145, demand response commands 147, charging profiles 150, authorization responses 152 from the remote server 133, based on which the gateway 110 controls a charging flow for all EVSEs 112 in the local network 137. The gateway 110 includes cellular/Wi-Fi to serial/ethernet translation”; Haas [0024] “gateway 110 that consists of one or more of the listed devices—EVSE parent.” Thus the “EVSE parent” provides the “EVSE children” access to the “remote server 133”. Moreover, each “EVSE child” has a communication connection to another “EVSE child”, see in Fig. [2.4]. Hence, both the “EVSE parent” and each “EVSE child” provide a network connectivity to another EV charger.)
“wherein network capabilities can also serve as the local load balancing management controller”,
(Haas [0021], Fig. 1, [0024] disclose “The gateway 110 receives load balancing 145, demand response commands 147, charging profiles 150, authorization responses 152 from the remote server 133, based on which the gateway 110 controls a charging flow for all EVSEs 112 in the local network 137; [0024] gateway 110 that consists of one or more of the listed devices—EVSE parent”)
“wherein in a group of parent/children EV chargers, two or more EV chargers with parent capabilities are included, both from cellular connectivity point of view, as well as from local load balancing management point of view”
(Haas [0024] discloses “Gateway 110 that consists of one or more of the listed devices—EVSE parent, building automation system and/or any other independent gateway controller “. Hence, a gateway can consist of two or more EVSE parent connect to the primary parent’s local area network (LAN) through either Wi-Fi, Ethernet, RS-485, or some other local area connection mechanism, and “wherein the group of parent/children EV chargers is with redundant WAN connections and redundant local load balancing.” Because Haas provides for a plurality of parent devices within the same gateway infrastructure, it inherently discloses a configuration where multiple units handle both cellular connectivity and local load management)
“wherein one EV charger is initially configured as a primary parent”
(Haas [0033] and Fig. [2-4] discloses “an EVSE network 213 includes an EVSE parent 215 and EVSE children 225,1-3". Also, [0020] “The EVSE network includes two or more components from a group of components including a first EVSE being a parent EVSE... a controller, a second EVSE being an EVSE child... and other energy management device”)
“wherein the group of parent/children EV chargers is with redundant WAN connections and redundant local load balancing”.
(Haas [0024] discloses “Gateway 110 that consists of one or more of the listed devices - EVSE parent, building automation system and/or any other independent gateway controller “. Thus, a gateway can consist of two or more EVSE parent “connect to the primary parent’s local area network (LAN) through either Wi-Fi, Ethernet, RS-485, or some other local area connection mechanism, and wherein the group of parent/children EV chargers is with redundant WAN connections and redundant local load balancing.”)
Haas does not appear to explicitly disclose system
“wherein each EV charger of the plurality of EV chargers comprising, a processor and a memory storing software (SW) instructions that, when executed by the processor,”
“while others are designated as backup parent EV chargers such that EV chargers that are backup parents maintain cellular (or another wide area network (WAN) connection) connectivity, but connect to the primary parent’s local area network (LAN) through either Wi-Fi, Ethernet, RS-485, or some other local area connection mechanism.”
However, Eger discloses system
“wherein each EV charger of the plurality of EV chargers comprising, a processor and a memory storing software (SW) instructions that, when executed by the processor”
(Eger [0049] discloses a charging system can be a hardware component or a function of the apparatus, “The charging system can be a hardware component or a function (for example in the form of software) which can be part of the apparatus, part of a (another) charging station or part of a central unit. The processing unit can in particular be a processor unit…”, Eger [0050] “The processing unit can include any type of processor or computation unit or computer with correspondingly required peripherals (memory, input/output interfaces, input/output devices, etc.).”; Also, Eger [0011] “The proposed approach therefore enables load management for a charging system including, for example, a plurality of charging stations, which are part of a publicly available electric recharging point, for example”)
“While others are designated as backup parent EV chargers such that EV chargers that are backup parents maintain cellular (or another wide area network (WAN) connection) connectivity, but connect to the primary parent’s local area network (LAN) through either Wi-Fi, Ethernet, RS-485, or some other local area connection mechanism, and the group of parent/children EV chargers is with redundant WAN connections and redundant local load balancing.
(Eger [0035] at least one backup master charging station is determined (for example in advance)” so that in the event of a failure, the backup takes over the master’s functions; Also, [0164] “In the event of failure of the master, the function of the master should be taken over by another charging station.”, and [0165] “selection of a backup master and redundant storage of the load distribution prior to failure of the master;”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Eger with Haas. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of reducing downtime and increasing the reliability of a charging system, and improving the time to provide instruction to operation. Thus, it improves the system performance and productivity.
As for claim 2, limitation of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system wherein a first variant of an algorithm in that assumption is that all parent EV chargers are able to communicate with all EV chargers in the group in case they not only serve as a WAN connection to a network, but also through a LAN established by that parent EV. However, Eger discloses system wherein
“a first variant of an algorithm in that assumption is that all parent EV chargers are able to communicate with all EV chargers in the group in case they not only serve as a WAN connection to a network, but also through a LAN established by that parent EV”.
(Eger [0145] discloses “one and the same program can be executed on a plurality of charging stations since, in this way, each charging station (as a node of a P2P network) is capable of taking on the function of the master.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the local networking of Haas with the master-switching capability of Eger to arrive at the first variant algorithm claimed; this combination would also ensure network redundancy with Haas’s parent-child hardware configuration.
As for claim 3 limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system wherein
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system wherein all EV chargers capable of being parents periodically (every X seconds) exchange messages indicating: a) strength of their WAN connection b) level of integrity of their local load management processor. However, Eger discloses system wherein
“all EV chargers capable of being parents periodically (every X seconds) exchange messages indicating: a) strength of their WAN connection b) level of integrity of their local load management processor”.
(Eger [0039] discloses “the master charging station to communicate the information on the present load distribution to the at least one backup master charging station, for example at preset times or on request”, Eger doesn’t have limitation on what “preset times” can be, as such “preset time” can be seconds; Eger [0040] “in the event of a failure of the master charging station, the next backup master charging station is activated or activates itself” describes a failover protocol that activates a backup master upon the failure; Eger [0171] discloses information includes strength of connection, “information indicating that master is still active and can communicate”; Eger [0177] further discloses “the failure of the charging station could have effects on the load management and could therefore require monitoring of charging stations”. Monitoring the integrity or health of a processor is the standard technical method for detecting failure in a networked controller, and it is predictable.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these specific indicators (WAN strength and processor integrity) in the periodic updates of Eger with Haas to ensure the network reliability sought by inventor. By monitoring the two most likely points of failure, the external connection and the internal processor, would ensure the system can reliably manage the network reliabilities.
As for claim 4: limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system wherein
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system wherein if a non-primary parent has a WAN connection strength considerably better than a primary parent (e.g., Excellent strength vs M Medium strength), the non-primary parent becomes a new primary parent. However, Eger discloses system
“wherein if a non-primary parent has a WAN connection strength considerably better than a primary parent (e.g., Excellent strength vs M Medium strength), the non-primary parent becomes a new primary parent,”
(Eger [0005] discloses “In addition to a centralized load management system, a decentralized load management facility carries out load distribution via a master charging station... If the master charging station fails, a changeover is made to a backup master charging station”; Eger[0169] “it is thus possible to ensure that the state in the master is also replicated in the backup masters.” Eger [0171] also discloses “The backup master demands a so-called “heartbeat” message from the master (i.e. information indicating that the master is still active and can communicate) […] If the backup master cannot reach the master either (i.e. in the case of no “heartbeat” message), it is assumed that the master has failed and the backup master activates its master mode.”. Clearly, the failure of the master implies a loss of its WAN connection (if the master has WAN capabilities))
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the redundancy framework of Eger to not only react to a total failure but to preemptively switch to a backup unit (non-primary parent) that offers superior signal quality (WAN strength) to ensure maximum reliability with Haas’ monitoring criteria resulting in a more robust network.
As for claim 5: limitations of parent claim 4 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system wherein a former parent then connects as a child to the new parent, and so do all the other children in the group such that the new primary parent serves as a cellular connection, a local Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) server, and a Wi-Fi Access Point to all EV chargers. However, Eger discloses system
“a former parent then connects as a child to the new parent, and so do all the other children in the group such that the new primary parent serves as a cellular connection, a local Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) server, and a Wi-Fi Access Point to all EV chargers”
(Eger [0145] discloses “each charging station (as a node of a P2P network) is capable of taking on the function of the master; and in [0164] “In the event of failure of the master, the function of the master should be taken over by another charging station”, Furthermore, Eger [0181] “If a former master becomes active again once it has failed... provision could be made for the former master not to assume its master role again”.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Eger with Haas to ensure network reliability and continued function during hardware transitions, as prioritized in both Haas and Eger to improve the connection uptime to all EV chargers.
As for claim 6: limitations of parent claim 5 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system wherein a similar algorithm is used for selection of the local load balancing management controller in the group. However, Eger discloses system
“wherein a similar algorithm is used for selection of the local load balancing management controller in the group wherein the local load balancing management controller does not need to be collocated with a primary parent”
(Eger [0010] discloses “The charging system can be implemented on different units as software functionality. In particular, the charging system can be part of the charging station or part of another charging station or part of a central component.” Furthermore, Eger [0150] also discloses “If a charging station has determined itself as master, it activates a master mode and initializes load management 206, for example by activation of a load management algorithm”. Thus, the same algorithm is used for selection of the local load balancing management controller in the group and is not collocated with a primary parent)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Eger’s charging system with load management controller (a software functionality that can reside on any unit in the network, whether it is the current master or another station) with Haas’ establishing a group of diverse components (controllers, different EVSEs, management devices) to improve an efficient and fair load management by allowing the most computationally capable or available node to handle load balancing, regardless of which node is currently serving as the network's WAN gateway.
As for claim 7 and 17: limitations of parent claim 2 and 16 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system wherein a second variant of the algorithm in that assumption is that not all parents are able to connect with all EV chargers in the group necessarily. However, Eger discloses system
“a second variant of the algorithm in that assumption is that not all parents are able to connect with all EV chargers in the group necessarily, and”
(Eger [0148] discloses “...each peer (charging station) in the P2P network is given a complete list of all peers (charging stations) during the configuration of the peer.”, providing every peer with a complete list of all other peers to ensure the network is managed, assuming full visibility under normal conditions. Furthermore, [0171] “...if the backup master cannot reach the master either... the backup master activates its master mode.” Shows that if a master cannot be reached (addressing the “second variant” scenario where connectivity is not universal), the system switches to a backup master to restore the link.)
“wherein a Wi-Fi Access Point function remains in an original primary parent (which was physically deployed in a central location that can reach all children, by definition, during the installation of the EV chargers), while a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) server and WAN connectivity functions move to a new primary parent, in case of need.”
(Eger [0010] discloses “The charging system can be implemented on different units as software functionality. In particular, the charging system can be part of the charging station or part of another charging station or part of a central component.”, that load management and network logic can be hosted on different units. Also, Eger [0165] “...selection of a backup master and redundant storage of the load distribution prior to failure of the master...”, and [0171] “if the backup master cannot reach the master either (i.e. in the case of no "heartbeat" message), it is assumed that the master has failed and the backup master activates its master mode.”, discloses that if a master fails, functions transition to a backup master.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Eger with Haas for improving network reliability by providing a variant that does not assume 100% connectivity, the system ensures that load balancing can still occur even when physical obstructions prevent a single parent from seeing the entire group.
As for claim 8: limitations of parent claim 7 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system wherein the new primary parent is to indicate to an outgoing primary parent that it needs to continue to perform a Wi-Fi Hotspot task. However, Eger discloses system
“wherein the new primary parent is to indicate to an outgoing primary parent that it needs to continue to perform a Wi-Fi Hotspot task”
(Eger [0010] discloses “In particular, the charging system can be part of the charging station or part of another charging station or part of a central component.” That recites that the charging management functionality is modular and can be implemented on different units. Also, Eger [0169] “It is thus possible to ensure that the state in the master is also replicated in the backup masters.” This teaches that upon failure or changeover, a backup master is activated. It also emphasizes that the state of the master is replicated or communicated to ensure continuity; Eger [0146] wireless communication)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Eger with Haas to maintain network stability by keeping hardware active as the hotspot to avoid the signal strength degradation issues.
As for claim 9: limitations of parent claim 7 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system
“wherein it is possible that in a given group some EV chargers centrally located allow the first variant, while EV chargers located at edges only allow the second variant such that for each EV charger to be aware of whether it can or cannot serve as a hotspot for all other EV chargers in the group, once the group is initially configured, an installer sends a “check group coverage” command to the group and once this command is in place, the EV chargers attempt to serve as the hotspot and connect to all other EV chargers in the group in a serial order, wherein an order of EV chargers is determined by a primary parent, wherein they are ordered by strength of a connection between an original primary parent and each of the EV chargers in the group, and wherein strength in the case of a Wi-Fi connection is measured in dBm”.
However, Eger discloses system “wherein it is possible that in a given group some EV chargers centrally located allow the first variant, while EV chargers located at edges only allow the second variant such that for each EV charger to be aware of whether it can or cannot serve as a hotspot for all other EV chargers in the group, once the group is initially configured, an installer sends a “check group coverage” command to the group and once this command is in place, the EV chargers attempt to serve as the hotspot and connect to all other EV chargers in the group in a serial order, wherein an order of EV chargers is determined by a primary parent, wherein they are ordered by strength of a connection between an original primary parent and each of the EV chargers in the group, and wherein strength in the case of a Wi-Fi connection is measured in dBm”.
(Eger [0043] discloses “configuration is that the charging system is provided decentralized from each charging station, wherein the electrical energy from the charging station is adjusted on the basis of information or messages from other charging stations” teaches a system where a master station is chosen and coordinated with others, noting that energy output is adjusted “on the basis of information or messages from other charging stations.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Eger with Haas since implementing a serial testing protocol (prioritizing by strength) is a predictable and standard engineering solution to verify the network's health.
As for claim 11: limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system wherein if a group has more than 2 parents, only the parents with best cellular connectivity strength need to leave their modems turned on, and the remaining parents can leave their modems powered off. However, Eger discloses system
“wherein if a group has more than 2 parents, only the parents with best cellular connectivity strength need to leave their modems turned on, and the remaining parents can leave their modems powered off”.
(Eger [0165] discloses “(i) selection of a backup master and redundant storage of the load distribution prior to failure of the master” and [0171] “if the backup master cannot reach the master either... the backup master activates its master mode.” This renders if a master fails, a backup master is activated to take over the role.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the redundant master/backup architecture of Eger with the signal-based selection logic of Haas to arrive at the subject matter of claimed. Once a system has identified the parents with the best cellular connectivity, it would be a predictable application of known power-management techniques to power off the modems of the redundant backup units to achieve the stated goals of reducing data costs and network interference.
As for claim 12: limitations of parent claim 11 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system wherein if a cellular connection of one of these two parents is lost, a primary parent instructs the parent which had the next best cellular connection to turn on its radio. However, Eger discloses system
“wherein if a cellular connection of one of these two parents is lost, a primary parent instructs the parent which had the next best cellular connection to turn on its radio”.
(Eger [0005] discloses “If the master charging station fails, a changeover is made to a backup master charging station.”, and in [0036] “For example, the charging station with the second lowest identification is the first backup master charging station, and so on.” Also, [claim 29] “29. The method as claimed in claim 28, further comprising activating a next backup master charging station upon failure of the master charging station”; Eger paragraph [0043] discloses exchanging messages among charging stations)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Eger with Haas
to improve the network reliability to minimize interference and operational costs by not havaing multiple clients are active on a network.
As for claim 13 and 18: limitations of parent claim 1 and 16 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system wherein at a time 1, a first EV charger acts as a parent and a first cellular modem connects to a charging station management system and a first Wi-Fi modem acts as a router, wherein a second EV charger and a third EV charger act as a child and a second cellular modem and a third cellular modem are disabled and a second Wi-Fi modem and a third Wi-Fi modem act as a client. However, Eger discloses system
“at a time 1, a first EV charger acts as a parent and a first cellular modem connects to a charging station management system and a first Wi-Fi modem acts as a router, wherein a second EV charger and a third EV charger act as a child and a second cellular modem and a third cellular modem are disabled and a second Wi-Fi modem and a third Wi-Fi modem act as a client”.
(Eger [0031] discloses “In addition, a development is that the charging system is provided by a master charging station”; and in [0035] “One configuration is that at least one backup master charging station is determined (for example in advance)”; Eger paragraph [0135]-[0138] discloses a master charger is selected and other charging stations organize themselves into peers and communicate with each other)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Eger with Haas to configure the system such that when one charger is the active Master/Parent, the other chargers (the children) have their cellular modems in a standby or disabled state to save on data costs and prevent IP conflicts; thus, improving performance of the network-based energy management.
As for claim 14 and 19: limitations of parent claim 13 and 18 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system wherein the first EV charger and the second EV charger act as a child with the first cellular modem and the second cellular modem are disabled and the first Wi-Fi modem and the second Wi-Fi modem act as a client and a third EV charger acts as a parent and the third cellular modem connects to the charging station management system and the third Wi-Fi modem acts as a router”. However, Eger discloses system
“the first EV charger and the second EV charger act as a child with the first cellular modem and the second cellular modem are disabled and the first Wi-Fi modem and the second Wi-Fi modem act as a client and a third EV charger acts as a parent and the third cellular modem connects to the charging station management system and the third Wi-Fi modem acts as a router”.
(Eger [0040] discloses “Another configuration is that, in the event of a failure of the master charging station, the next backup master charging station is activated or activates itself”. While Haas provides the Parent-Child hardware context, Eger provides the Failover/Role-Switching logic.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Eger’s master-switching logic to Haas’s Parent-Child hardware to improve network redundancy since switching of a Wi-Fi modem from router to client is a well-known technical necessity when a device changes from a network host (Parent) to a network node (Child).
As for claim 15 and 20: limitations of parent claim 1 and 16 have been discussed above. Haas discloses system
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system wherein the group of parent/children EV chargers is configured via an installer application user interface of an installer app of a phone. However, Eger disclose system
“wherein the group of parent/children EV chargers is configured via an installer application user interface of an installer app of a phone”.
(Eger [0158] discloses “…Before a charging station becomes active in decentralized load management, a connection to the central component takes place”, and in [0159] “For example, an installer can implement the parameterization of the charging station... via a laptop by means of the central component”; Also, [0146] further teaches that these stations can communicate over a “mobile radio network (e.g., GSM, UMTS, LTE, etc.)”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Egar with Haas to use a smartphone app to improve the efficiency and portability for field technicians by reducing time consuming installation tasks.
As for claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0305927, filed on 9/29/2022 (hereinafter Haas) in view of Edger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0084874, filed on 03/27/2014 (hereinafter Edger) in view of Wang, Xiao-fei, CN Patent Application Publication No. CN 202311165620 A, published on 12/1/2023 (hereinafter Wang).
As for claim 10: limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Haas discloses
“An electric vehicle (EV) charging system configured for charging an EV’s Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) battery, the EV charging system…”
(Haas [0001] discloses “network-based energy management of electric vehicle (EV) charging network infrastructure”. Thus, electric vehicle, EV, charging implicitly implies charging an EV's Lithium-Ion battery as industrial standard; Haas paragraphs [0001], [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0033-0035] and Figures [1-4]).
Haas does not appear to explicitly discloses system
“wherein each EV charger attempts to be a hotspot, and then waits for each child to connect to it and if all EV chargers in an original group manage to connect to an EV charger testing its hotspot capabilities, the hotspot marks itself as the first variant capable, wherein given that every EV charger can connect to an original primary parent, the original primary parent controls a mapping algorithm, either by communicating to the EV charger that is performing a hotspot function and to a next EV charger in the group (if they are connected to each other) to move to a next step in the mapping, or by taking control and becoming the hotspot again in between mapping steps (since it is the only EV charger that is known to be able to connect to all other EV chargers by definition)”. However, Wang disclose system
“wherein each EV charger attempts to be a hotspot, and then waits for each child to connect to it and if all EV chargers in an original group manage to connect to an EV charger testing its hotspot capabilities, the hotspot marks itself as the first variant capable, wherein given that every EV charger can connect to an original primary parent, the original primary parent controls a mapping algorithm, either by communicating to the EV charger that is performing a hotspot function and to a next EV charger in the group (if they are connected to each other) to move to a next step in the mapping, or by taking control and becoming the hotspot again in between mapping steps (since it is the only EV charger that is known to be able to connect to all other EV chargers by definition)”
(Wang [S130-S150] discloses a method for a self-organizing network of charging piles where units engage in an election process to determine a master control unit, “step S130, each charging pile checks the state information according to its own checking frequency and judges whether there is main control, if not, entering step S140; step S140, each charging pile sends campaign information according to its own checking frequency; step S150, each charging pile votes according to the time of receiving the election information, and determines the main control according to the number of votes”; Also Wang teaches that the master control periodically broadcasts its status to the group, “Step S160, the master control broadcasts its own information according to a preset frequency.” Thus, each charging pile checks itself to be a hotspot; and the main controller is obviously first variant capable since it can connect to all other charging piles.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the connection quality feedback and re-networking mechanisms of Wang algorithm (S130 to S160) with Haas and Eger to improve the mapping steps to ensure group connectivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9758. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-5.
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, Jeanette J. Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/THOMAS NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646