DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed March 15, 2024 via preliminary amendment. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 16, 17, and 19-29 are currently pending, of which claims 3, 5, 6, 16, and 17 are currently amended. Claims 4, 9-15, and 18 have been cancelled and claims 19-29 are newly presented.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 25-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25 recites “the storage medium according to claim 17” and claim 17 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. In order to prevent any potential confusion, claim 25 should read “the computer-readable storage medium” or “the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. Claims 26-29 recite similar language and are objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – Contingent Language
Claim 3 is/are directed to a method that recites three different conditional scenarios based on battery charging state and maximum allowable charging power of the battery. The conditional nature of this claim language allows for an interpretation where any prior art meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when only a single condition is met. Therefore, the prior art only needs to read “when the battery is in an uncharged state”, or “the battery is in a charging state and maximum allowable charging power of the battery is greater than or equal to a sum of the operating power deviation values of the plurality of electric devices”, or “when the battery is in the charging state and the maximum allowable charging power of the battery is less than the sum of the operating power deviation values of the plurality of electric devices”. Applicant needs to explicitly claim each of these scenarios to happen. See MPEP 2111.04(II); see also Ex parte Schulhauser. Examiner notes that this is different from the language of the device of claim 20 or the storage medium of claim 26, which explicitly require both situations to occur.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 16, 17, 19, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0269921; hereinafter, “Kusumi”) and further in view of Siy et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0109408; hereinafter, “Siy”).
As per claim 1, Kusumi teaches a method for power allocation, comprising:
receiving a power request sent by each of a plurality of electric devices, wherein the power request comprises initial requested power that is an actual power value currently requested by a corresponding device (See Kusumi para. [0018]: power consumption values for HVAC unit or other units or devices of the vehicle);
determining final requested power corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices according to the initial requested power and an operating power deviation value corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices (See Kusumi Fig. 2 and paras. [0010-11] and [0027-29]: setting power consumption value of an HVAC unit, for example. Then, comparing power consumption values to efficiently allocate power to the HVAC unit based on the vehicle conditions) and
determining allocated power corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices according to current available power of a power supply system and the final requested power corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices (See Kusumi Fig. 2 and paras. [0027-29]: comparing power consumption values to efficiently allocate power to the HVAC unit based on the vehicle conditions).
However, while Kusumi teaches managing power demands based on availability, Kusumi does not teach using historical data as part of that determination.
Siy teaches wherein the operating power deviation value is configured to measure a historical deviation of actual requested power from actual operating power of the corresponding electric device (See Siy paras. [0025-29]: calculating historical energy deltas and actual recent energy used).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the energy calculations of Kusumi with the historical deltas of Siy. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose monitoring power draw of vehicle components in EVs, and Siy further enhances the calculations of Kusumi by increasing the accuracy of the calculations, while also allowing for more stable predictions (See Siy paras. [0006] and [0028]).
As per claim 2, Kusumi/Siy teaches the method as claimed in claim 1. Kusumi further teaches determining the operating power deviation value corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices according to the actual requested power and the actual operating power respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices (See Kusumi Fig. 2 and paras. [0027-29]: comparing power consumption values to efficiently allocate power to the HVAC unit based on the vehicle conditions).
However, while Kusumi teaches managing power demands based on availability, Kusumi does not teach using historical data as part of that determination.
Siy teaches obtaining actual requested power and actual operating power respectively corresponding to each electric device in the vehicle in a set historical time (See Siy paras. [0025-29]: calculating historical energy deltas and actual recent energy used at specific time steps).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Kusumi with the teachings of Siy for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 3, Kusumi/Siy further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the power supply system comprises a battery; and determining the allocated power corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices according to the current available power of the power supply system and the final requested power corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices, comprises:
when the battery is in an uncharged state, or the battery is in a charging state and maximum allowable charging power of the battery is greater than or equal to a sum of the operating power deviation values of the plurality of electric devices, determining the allocated power corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices according to the current available power of the power supply system and the final requested power corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices, or when the battery is in the charging state and the maximum allowable charging power of the battery is less than the sum of the operating power deviation values of the plurality of electric devices, prohibiting the use of the plurality of electric devices (See Kusumi paras. [0025-29]: relatively constant power value when the available battery power is not low, thus greater than or equal to power deviation values. If the values are low, the power consumption of a device like the HVAC system can be decreased accordingly).
As per claim 5, Kusumi/Siy further teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein determining the allocated power corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices according to the current available power of the power supply system and the final requested power corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices, comprises: when the current available power of the power supply system is greater than or equal to a sum of the final requested power of the plurality of electric devices, determining the initial requested power of each of the plurality of electric devices to be the allocated power corresponding to each of the plurality of electric devices (See Kusumi Fig. 2 and paras. [0025-29]: relatively constant power value when the available battery power is not low, thus greater than or equal to power deviation values. If the values are low, the power consumption of a device like the HVAC system can be decreased accordingly).
As per claims 16 and 19, the claims are directed to a device that implements the same features as the method of claims 1 and 2, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Kusumi/Siy teaches an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively coupled with the at least one processor; wherein the at least one processor is configured to implement said method (See Kusumi paras. [0030-31]).
As per claims 17 and 25, the claims are directed to a computer-readable storage medium that implements the same features as the method of claims 1 and 2, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Kusumi/Siy teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer instructions, wherein the computer instructions are configured to cause a computer to perform a method for power allocation, comprising said method (See Kusumi para. [0031]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 20-24, and 26-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner notes the contingent claim language above for the method of claim 3 and how that is different from allowable claims 20 and 26 which both explicitly require all scenarios (as discussed above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights