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 . The instant application with Application Number 18/619,161 filed on 03/28/2024 is presented for examination. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statment
The Information Disclosure Statement dated 03/28/2024 is acknowledged and the cited references have been considered in this examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (US 2021/0170902) in view of Quattrini et al. (US 2018/0001781).
With respect to claims 1, 4 and 5, Tsuchiya discloses a power management system that manages an exchange of electric power between power storage devices of a plurality of electric vehicles (Para. # 0034/0036: a power management system including a plurality of power storages. Each of the plurality of power storages carries out at least one of external charging and external power feed)
PNG
media_image1.png
651
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a charging and discharging device connected to an electric power system of the facility (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 13, charging/discharging S52), the power management system comprising: a vehicle management device (Para. # 0058) configured to select the electric vehicle with surplus capacity for a discharge from the power storage device based on SOC of the power storage device of each of the electric vehicles (Fig. 8, high capacity (SOC) discharge whereas low request for charge)
PNG
media_image2.png
601
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
of each of the electric vehicles when an electric power supply from at least one of the
electric vehicles to the electric power system is requested (Para. # 0036: the power management system further includes a plurality of power facilities electrically connectable to the plurality of vehicles, request processor transmits a signal that requests a user of the vehicle to promote external charging, suppress external charging, or carry out external power fee) and instruct the selected electric vehicle to discharge from the power storage device to the electric power system (Para. #111: electric power output from charger-discharger 120 to battery 130 in charging of battery 130). When charging power for battery 130 is variable, maximum charging power corresponds to Y4. Y4 corresponds to exemplary “charging capability.” Server 30 can receive Y4 from vehicle 50).
Tsuchiya does not expressly disclose selecting vehicle based on SOC of the vehicle and its weight.
Quattrini, on the other hand, discloses selecting vehicle based for charge based on need, the state of charge, and the weight as the heavier vehicle implies more power or more charging is required (Fig. 3, 125kw compared to 90 kw power requiring vehicles requires more power; Para. # 0030: the sum of the power drawn of the dispensers 150A-B should be less than or equal to the total amount of power that can be supplied by the power modules 115A-D).
PNG
media_image3.png
590
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
TSUCHIYA and Quattrini are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely power management and power module for charging electric vehicles.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added power management circuitry that help select vehicle charge based on capacity need including vehicle with more battery or weight to the power management of Tsuchiya in view of Quattrini for the benefit of effective charging vehicles based on SOC and weight since both the battery’s state-of-charge (SOC) and its current mass, often optimize energy efficiency, safety, and battery life.
With respect to claim 2, the combined references of Tsuchiya disclose the power management system that manages the exchange of electric power as described above, further Tsuchiya discloses wherein the vehicle management device is configured to decrease a lower limit SOC of the electric vehicle with surplus capacity for the discharge from the power storage device compared to the electric vehicle without surplus capacity for the discharge from the power storage device (Para. # 0061: Charger-discharger 120 includes a relay that switches between connection and disconnection of an electric power path from inlet 110 to battery 130 and a power conversion circuit).
With respect to claim 4, the combined references of Tsuchiya disclose the power management system that manages the exchange of electric power as described above, further Tsuchiya discloses wherein the vehicle management device is configured to increases a target SOC of the power storage device of the electric vehicle with a heavier cargo compared to the power storage device of the electric vehicle with a lighter cargo when the power storage devices of the plurality of electric vehicles are charged by electric power from the electric power system (Para. # 0089: The state of connection of the charging cable is information on whether or not connector 43 of charging cable 42 is connected to inlet 110. The state of the battery is information on the value of an SOC of battery 130 and information indicating whether or not battery 130 is being charged).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YALKEW FANTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/YALKEW FANTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights