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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 18, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Amendments to claims 12 and 15 overcome the previous 112 rejections. Accordingly, the previous 112 rejections of claims 12 and 15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly found prior art Miftakhov (US 2019/0061546) discloses the newly amended limitations of claim 1: an electric vehicle charging system (100) (Fig.1) comprising: a sensor configured to measure a voltage and a current of an external electrical grid (102) at a grid connector by sampling in real-time at a rate sufficient to generate a waveform for determining AC power and AC power quality of the external electrical grid (102) (Par.42-43); a system controller (105) configured to synchronize operation of a power module (inside 100) with operation of the external electrical grid (102) and at least one other system (100) of multiple electrical vehicle charging systems (Par.33) based on the power and the power quality (Par.42-43).
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the limitation “based on power/current limits a local portion” in Lines 2-3.
The limitation should recite: based on power/current limits of a local portion.
Claim 18 recites “configured to perform or more of:” in Line 2.
It appears Claim 18, Line 2 should recite: configured to perform one or more of:
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 and 21-22 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 recites the limitation “a current sensor configured to measure a voltage and a current” in Line 8.
It is unclear how a current sensor measures voltage.
For purpose of examination the limitation of Claim 1, Line 8 is interpreted as reciting: a sensor configured to measure a voltage and a current.
Claims 2-18 and 21-22 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected under 112(b) as they inherit the deficiencies as identified above.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the current sensor is one of” in Line 1.
For purpose of examination the limitation of Claim 21, Line 1 is interpreted as reciting: the sensor comprising one of.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the current sensor” in Line 1.
For purpose of examination the limitation of Claim 22, Line 1 is interpreted as reciting: the sensor.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “supply AC power to the electric vehicle charging port, and supply the AC power to the electric vehicle charging port” in Lines 4-5.
This appears to be a typographical error.
For purpose of examination the limitation of Claim 12, Lines 4-5 is interpreted as reciting: and supply AC power to the electric vehicle charging port.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “control the power conversion module to charge the electric vehicle based on one or more of a current state of charge of the electric vehicle” in Lines 3-4 and 6-7. Both limitations are identical. It is unclear if this was intended to be a different limitation or a typographical error.
For purpose of examination the limitation of Claim 18 “charge end time, and a minimum state of charge of the electric vehicle by set time control the power conversion module to charge the electric vehicle based on one or more of a current state of charge of the electric vehicle, a priority associated with this electric vehicle, and a geographic location of this electric vehicle” in Lines 5-8; is interpreted as reciting:
charge end time, a minimum state of charge of the electric vehicle by set time, a priority associated with this electric vehicle, and a geographic location of this electric vehicle.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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 1-2, 4-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veda et al. (US 2017/0155253) in view Harty (US 2013/0113413) and Miftakhov (US 2019/0061546).
Claim 1: Veda teaches an intelligent network (Fig.6) comprising:
multiple electric vehicle charging systems (316, 318, 320) (Par.38), each comprising:
an electric vehicle charging port (coupled to 322), for connecting to an electric vehicle (322) (Fig.5) and charging the electric vehicle (322) (Par.36);
a grid connector (coupled to 312) (Fig.5), for connecting to an external electrical grid (312) (Par.36);
a power conversion module (330), electrically coupled to each of the electric vehicle charging port, and the grid connector (Par.36);
a sensor (354) configured to measure a voltage and a current of the external electrical grid at the grid connector by sampling in real-time (Par.55-56);
a communication module for external communication to the external electrical grid (312) and to any other system of the multiple electrical vehicle charging systems (316,318,320) (Par.35 and 37); and
a system controller (342) communicative coupled to each of the communication module and the power conversion module (330), wherein the system controller (342) is configured to synchronize operation of the power conversion module (330) with operation of the external electrical grid (312) and at least one other system (318, 320) of the multiple electrical vehicle charging systems (316,318,320) (Par.35, The operation of the charging systems is collectively coordinated.).
Vera does not explicitly teach the sensor configured to measure at a rate sufficient to generate a waveform for determining AC power and AC power quality of the external electrical grid; the system controller configured to synchronize operation based on the power and the power quality.
Miftakhov teaches an electric vehicle charging system (100) (Fig.1) comprising: an electric vehicle charging port (coupled to charging plug 101) (Par.33); a grid connector (coupled to 103) (Par.33); and a sensor configured to measure a voltage and a current of an external electrical grid (102) at the grid connector by sampling in real-time at a rate sufficient to generate a waveform for determining AC power and AC power quality of the external electrical grid (102) (Par.42-43); a system controller (105) configured to synchronize operation based on the power and the power quality (Par.33 and 42-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Miftakhov in the system of Veda to have had controlled multiple electric vehicle charging systems in response to electrical grid conditions (Par.33), to enable more efficient electric power grid management, and have had increased power quality across the distribution domain (Par.44).
Furthermore, Veda does not explicitly teach the power conversion module comprises at least one inverter.
Harty teaches an electric vehicle charging system (Fig.1) comprising:
a power conversion module (50,70,80), electrically coupled to each of an electric vehicle (100) charging port (60), and a grid connector (32) and comprising at least one inverter (Par.27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Harty in the system of Veda to have had converted direct current power to alternating current to allow for the electric vehicle to provide power to the grid (Par.27) thereby improving the functionality of the charging system.
Claim 2: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda does not explicitly teach wherein: each of the multiple electric vehicle charging systems further comprises (a) a solar connector electrically coupled to the power conversion module and (b) a battery electrically coupled to the power conversion module, and the power conversion module is configured to manage power distribution between the electric vehicle charging port, the grid connector, the solar connector, and the battery.
Harty teaches the electric vehicle charging system (Fig.1) further comprises (a) a solar connector (24) electrically coupled to the power conversion module (50,70,80) and (b) a battery (40) electrically coupled to the power conversion module (50,70,80), and the power conversion module (50,70,80) is configured to manage power distribution between the electric vehicle charging port (60), the grid connector (32), the solar connector (24), and the battery (40) (Par.26, 28 and 32-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Harty in the system of Veda to have had controlled power from/to multiple power sources thus increasing energy efficiency and potential user savings (Par.4-5).
Claim 4: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda teaches wherein the system controller (342) is configured to adjust power consumption of the power conversion module (330) from the external electrical grid (312) based on constraints of the external electrical grid (312) (Par.37 and 43).
Claim 5: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 4 as disclosed above. Veda teaches wherein the constraints of the external electrical grid (312) are detected by one or more of the multiple electrical vehicle charging systems (316,318,320) (Par.37, Monitored by sensing circuit 344.).
Claim 6: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 4 as disclosed above. Veda teaches wherein the constraints of the external electrical grid (312) are inferred, by the system controller (342), from publicly available information (Par.37, Information received from the grid.).
Claim 7: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 6 as disclosed above. Veda teaches wherein the publicly available information is received from the external electrical grid (312) (Par.37).
Claim 8: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 4 as disclosed above. Veda does not explicitly teach wherein the constraints of the external electrical grid are obtained via database cross-reference or user input.
Harty teaches constraints of the external electrical grid (30) (Fig.1) are obtained via user input (Par.40 and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Harty in the system of Veda to have had facilitated user driven control (Par.7) to allow users to select when to charge/discharge based on particular needs (Par.42).
Claim 9: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda teaches wherein the system controller (342) is configured to adjust power consumption of the power conversion module (330) from the external electrical grid (312) based on power/current limits of a local portion of the external electrical grid (312) (Par.52 and 59, Amount of power needed from the charging systems. Keeping the grid within acceptable limits.).
Claim 17: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda teaches wherein the power conversion module (330) (Fig.5) is further configured to provide DC/DC (338) direct charging to the electric vehicle charging port (coupled to 322) based on power received from the grid connector (coupled to 312) (Par.36).
Claim 18: Veda in view of Harty teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda does not explicitly teach wherein the system controller is configured to perform one or more of: control the power conversion module to charge the electric vehicle based on one or more of a current state of charge of the electric vehicle, a charging power limit of the electric vehicle, charge start time, charge end time, a minimum state of charge of the electric vehicle by set time, a priority associated with this electric vehicle, and a geographical location of this electric vehicle, and
request, from the external electrical grid, a priority to charge the electric vehicle based on one or more of a current state of charge of the electric vehicle, a priority associated with this electric vehicle, and a geographic location of this electric vehicle.
Harty teaches a system controller (14) (Fig.1) configured to control a power conversion module (50,70,80) to charge an electric vehicle (100) based on one or more of a current state of charge of the electric vehicle (Par.40, Vehicle charged until the vehicle battery becomes full), and a charge start time (Par.40, Mode change during certain times).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Harty in the system of Veda to have had charged the vehicle battery as needed (Par.39) thereby preventing energy loss.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veda et al. (US 2017/0155253) in view of Harty (US 2013/0113413) and Miftakhov (US 2019/0061546) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paluszek et al. (US 2018/0254643).
Claim 3: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda does not explicitly teach wherein: each of the multiple electric vehicle charging systems further comprises one or more additional electric vehicle charging ports, and the power conversion module is configured to multiplex DC power to the electric vehicle charging port and the one or more additional electric vehicle charging ports.
Paluszek teaches an electric vehicle charging system (Fig.1) comprising one or more additional vehicle charging ports (132) electrically coupled to a power conversion module (106), wherein the power conversion module (106) is configured to multiplex DC power to an electric vehicle charging port and to the one or more additional electric vehicle charging ports (132) (Par.22-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Paluszek in the system of Veda to have had charged a plurality of vehicles connected to a single power conversion module (Par.24-25).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veda et al. (US 2017/0155253) in view of Harty (US 2013/0113413) and Miftakhov (US 2019/0061546) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dorn et al. (US 2013/0211988).
Claim 10: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda teaches wherein the system controller (342) is controlled by an external control unit (328) together with other systems of the multiple electrical vehicle charging systems (316,318,320) to balance a power demand from the external electrical grid (312) (Par.21 and 39-42).
Veda does not explicitly teach the external control unit is in the external electrical grid.
Dorn teaches controlling by an external electrical grid (104/105) (Fig.2) systems in multiple electrical vehicle charging systems (106-108) (Par.27, Power allocation is controlled using logic included in the grid.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Dorn in the system of Veda to have had efficiently and effectively managed all electric vehicle charging systems (Par.8-9) throughout a power grid (Par.10).
Claim 11: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda does not explicitly teach wherein: the communication module is configured to report to the external electrical grid at least one of real-time required power demands and actually drawn power by a corresponding one of the multiple electrical vehicle charging systems, and the external electrical grid is configured to control the multiple electrical vehicle charging systems based on the at least one of real-time required power demand and actually drawn power, received from one or more systems of the multiple electrical vehicle charging systems.
Dorn teaches a communication module, of an electric vehicle charging system, configured to report to an external electrical grid (104/105) at least one of actually drawn power by a corresponding one of multiple electrical vehicle charging systems (Par.32, Data from charging stations is collected and communicated to the utility), and the external electrical grid (104/105) is configured to control the multiple electrical vehicle charging systems based on actually drawn power, received from one or more systems of the multiple electrical vehicle charging systems (Par.27-28, The grid includes logic that gathers data and controls power allocation. The data gathered in the charging stations include usage of specific vehicles; and amount of power drawn from the grid.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Dorn in the system of Veda to have had efficiently and effectively managed power allocation to multiple electric vehicle charging systems (Par.8-9) to handle fluctuations in power demand (Par.10).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veda et al. (US 2017/0155253) in view of Harty (US 2013/0113413) and Miftakhov (US 2019/0061546) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2020/0244071).
Claim 12: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. The combination of Veda and Harty does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one inverter of the power conversion module comprises a bi-directional AC-DC inverter configured to: receive DC power from one of the solar collector or the battery, and supply AC power to the electric vehicle charging port.
Smith teaches an electric vehicle charging system (Fig.17) comprising: at least one inverter of a power conversion module comprises a bi-directional AC-DC inverter (Par.106) configured to: receive DC power from one of a solar collector (Solar) or a battery (RESS), and supply AC power to an electric vehicle charging port (Par.106-107; An electric vehicle (EV(AC)) receives AC power).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Smith in the combination to have had optimized cost and efficiency by being able to charge electric vehicles that receive AC and/or DC from multiple power sources (Par.88).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veda et al. (US 2017/0155253) in view of Harty (US 2013/0113413) and Miftakhov (US 2019/0061546) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beaston et al. (US 2017/0106764).
Claim 13: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda does not explicitly teach further comprising an integrated battery configured to pass a state of charge of the integrated battery, voltage of the integrated battery, and temperature of the integrated battery to the system controller.
Beaston teaches an electric vehicle charging system (Fig.3B) comprising: an integrated battery (301) (Par.39-40) configured to pass a state of charge of the integrated battery (301), voltage of the integrated battery (301), and temperature of the integrated battery (301) to a system controller (302) (Par.43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Beaston in the system of Veda to have had a battery assisted electric vehicle charging system for charging electric vehicles in a shorter amount of time (Par.21-22); while controlling the charging/discharging of integrated battery based on different battery parameters (Par.43) to prevent damage.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veda et al. (US 2017/0155253) in view of Harty (US 2013/0113413) and Miftakhov (US 2019/0061546) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2016/0052413).
Claim 14: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda does not explicitly teach wherein the electric vehicle charging port is configured to detect a charging waveform when connected to the electric vehicle and to identify the electric vehicle connected to the electric vehicle charging port.
Shimizu teaches an electric vehicle charging port configured to detect charging waveform when connected to an electric vehicle and to identify the electric vehicle connected to the electric vehicle charging port from the charging waveform (Par.59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Shimizu in the system of Veda to have had verified the electrical characteristics of the electric vehicle as a safety precaution prior to providing charge (Par.60).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veda et al. (US 2017/0155253) in view of Harty (US 2013/0113413), Miftakhov (US 2019/0061546) and Shimizu et al. (US 2016/0052413) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Boopathy et al. (US 2021/0152367).
Claim 15: Veda in view of Harty, Miftakhov and Shimizu teach the limitations of claim 14 as disclosed above. Veda does not explicitly teach wherein the electric vehicle connected to the electric vehicle charging port is detected from the charging waveform.
Shimizu teaches an electric vehicle connected to an electric vehicle charging port is detected from the charging waveform characteristics (Par.59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Shimizu in the system of Veda to have had verified the electrical characteristics of the electric vehicle as a safety precaution prior to providing charge (Par.60).
The combination of Veda and Shimizu does not explicitly teach using voltage detection and logging capability to match a voltage profile over time.
Boopathy teaches detecting an electronic device from a waveform using voltage detection and logging capability to match a voltage profile over time (Par.28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Boopathy in the combination to have had accurately obtained signature data corresponding to one or more electronic devices (Par.28).
Claims 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veda et al. (US 2017/0155253) in view of Harty (US 2013/0113413) and Miftakhov (US 2019/0061546) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schulz (US 2013/0346010).
Claim 16: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda does not explicitly teach wherein the system controller is configured to initiate a test charge to characterize one or more of power draw, voltage, and switching characteristics of the electric vehicle charging port, and determine charge conditions for the electric vehicle charging port based on the test charge.
Schulz teaches an electric vehicle charging system (Fig.1) comprising: a system controller (132) configured to initiate a test charge to characterize one or more of power draw, voltage, and switching characteristics of an electric vehicle charging port, and determine charge conditions for the electric vehicle charging port based on the test charge (Par.81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Schulz in the system of Veda to have had detected anomalies and non-compliance of the charger (Par.83) and take appropriate action if the charge output may damage the electric vehicle or a user (Par.84).
Claim 22: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor is configured to detect a ground fault of the AC power of the external electrical grid.
Schulz teaches a sensor (Par.16) configured to detect a ground fault of an AC power of an external electrical grid (Par.68 and 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Schulz in the system of Veda to have had monitored safety items to have had disabled or restarted the charge sequence or alert a user (Par.68) thereby preventing damage to the system or harm to a person (Par.84).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veda et al. (US 2017/0155253) in view of Harty (US 2013/0113413) and Miftakhov (US 2019/0061546) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zyren (US 2009/0261779).
Claim 21: Veda in view of Harty and Miftakhov teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Veda does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprising one of a current sense board or a current sense transformer.
Schulz teaches an electric vehicle charging system (120) (Fig.1) comprising: a sensor comprising a current sense transformer (Par.78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the teachings of Zyren in the system of Veda to have had the expected result of monitoring a current consumed during a charging session (Par.78) utilizing a known current sensor topology.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached on 571-270-7166. 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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 /TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859