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 July 29, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites two limitations in the “power distribution module”, and the “compute” limitation should end with an “and”, as it is the penultimate limitation in the indented hierarchy (similar to the other two modules).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “power computation module”, “state data acquisition module”, and “power distribution module” in claims 1-8 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 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 limitations power computation module”, “state data acquisition module”, and “power distribution module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, Applicant’s disclosure discusses the various functionalities of these modules, but does not touch on their structure outside of being broadly part of the EVEMS. Their structure is not clear whether they are software, hardware, or a combination of both.. Therefore, claims 1-8 and 10 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim 9 is rejected based on its dependency from an above-rejected claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Interpretation – Contingent Language
Claim(s) 12 is/are directed to a method that recites multiple determination steps. The conditional nature of this claim language allow for an interpretation where any prior art meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when none of the limitations occur, at best. Firstly, there is no determination that the diversity parameter is above, below, or equal to a threshold so neither of those limitations need be triggered. Secondly, in a situation in which the available power is sufficient and the diversity parameter is equal to the threshold, none of the options are triggered. Additionally, because the determination doesn't have to occur, even if the diversity parameter is greater than the threshold and the available power is sufficient, you also don't trigger any of the limitations. Therefore, the prior art only needs to read on the preamble of the claim. The other outcomes are not necessary for prior art purposes. See MPEP 2111.04(II); see also Ex parte Schulhauser. To cure said issues, Examiner recommends multiple determination steps subsequent to one another, so each “in response to” step has to occur, one after another.
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, 4, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewchuk et al (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0120740; hereinafter, “Lewchuk”) and further in view of Gaertner et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0269717; hereinafter “Gaertner”).
As per claim 1, Lewchuk teaches an electric vehicle energy management system (EVEMS) for controlling demand charge of a plurality of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) connected to an electric circuit having a common electric service entry providing a fixed maximum power to the electric circuit, the EVEMS comprising:
at least one communication device, configured to allow for bidirectional communications between the EVEMS and each of the plurality of EVSE (See Lewchuk Figs. 50, 51, and paras. [0327-328] and [0392-393]: sending and receiving data between management system and EV);
at least one processor and memory (See Lewchuk para. [0212]);
a power computation module, configured to compute, using the at least one processor:
a portion of the fixed maximum power corresponding to an available power to distribute among the plurality of EVSE (See Lewchuk Figs. 48, 49, and paras. [0310-311]: maximum load settings for EV charging), and
a deployment parameter corresponding to an indication of a number of the plurality of EVSE that can operate according to a given operating condition based on the available power (See Lewchuk Figs. 48-50 and paras. [0309-310]: prioritizing charging for specific vehicle of multiple vehicles, including maximum charge rates);
a state data acquisition module, configured to:
receive, by the at least one communication device, from each of the plurality of EVSE, state data comprising at least an indication of whether the corresponding EVSE is connected to an electric vehicle (EV) (See Lewchuk paras. [0315-316] and [0322-323]: monitoring battery system of EV to determine whether the batteries are sufficiently charged and factoring in total power consumption to adjust charge rate accordingly), and
store, to the at least one memory, the received state data (See Lewchuk paras. [0227], [0323] and [0327]: storing information associated with the process in memory, including state information/metrics); and
a power distribution module, configured to:
distribute the available power among the EVSE based at least in part on the deployment parameter (See Lewchuk paras. [0327-328]: control circuitry that transmits control signal to charger to distribute power to EV).
However, while Lewchuk teaches a deployment parameter, Lewchuk does not explicitly teach a diversity parameter.
Gaertner teaches compute, by the at least one processor, a diversity parameter corresponding to a ratio between a number of EV-connected EVSE and the deployment parameter (See Gaertner para. [0187]: ratio of number of vehicles charging at a first phase to the number of vehicles at a different phase, which can be the number of vehicles operating based on the available power of Lewchuk).
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 charging prioritization and power availability of Lewchuk with the ratio of vehicles of Gaertner. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose managing and controlling electric vehicle charging based on available power loads. Gaertner further enhances the management of Lewchuk by increasing the efficiency of coordinated vehicle charging, enhancing the distribution and ensuring that the vehicles are charged in an optimal manner.
As per claim 3, Lewchuk/Gaertner further teaches the EVEMS of claim 1, comprising at least one circuit sensor configured to measure power currently being drawn by the electric circuit, wherein the power computation module is configured to subtract the measured power from the fixed maximum power when determining the available power to distribute among the plurality of EVSE (See Lewchuk paras. [0005] and [0314]: “if a maximum load setting limits the total consumption, and the non-EV charging consumption changes, the available power for EV-charging may change (e.g., the difference between the maximum load setting and the non-EV charging consumption).” A difference is a subtraction between the two values, deriving the available power for EV charging).
As per claim 4, Lewchuk/Gaertner further teaches the EVEMS of claim 3, wherein the power computation module is configured to apply a safety factor when determining the available power to distribute among the plurality of EVSE (See Lewchuk para. [0156]: safety state that can be used to trigger breakers, relays, or combination thereof).
As per claims 11, 13, and 14, the claims are directed to a method that implements the same features as the EVEMS of claims 1, 3, and 4, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 12, Lewchuk/Gaertner further teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the power distribution module is configured to: determine whether the available power is sufficient to power all the EV-connected EVSE according to the given operating condition; in response to determining that the available power is sufficient and that the diversity parameter is below a predetermined threshold, send, by the at least one communication device, a control signal to the plurality of EVSE authorizing each EVSE to operate according to the given operating condition; in response to determining that the available power is insufficient, distribute the available power among the EVSE by sending a control signal to the EVSE authorizing each EVSE to operate below the given operating condition according to the available power; and in response to determining that the diversity parameter is above the predetermined threshold, send a control signal to distribute the available power among the EVSE as a function of the number of EV-connected EVSE, and/or based on a battery state of the EV connected to the EVSE and/or on a charging limit variability of the EVSE, to bring the diversity parameter below the predetermined threshold (See Lewchuk paras. [0315-316] and [0322-323]: monitoring battery system of EV to determine whether the batteries are sufficiently charged and factoring in total power consumption to adjust charge rate accordingly).
As per claim 15, Lewchuk/Gaertner further teaches the method of claim 12, wherein in response to determining that the available power is insufficient, the available power is distributed as a function of the number of EV-connected EVSE and/or the battery state of connected vehicles (See Lewchuk paras. [0315-316] and [0322-323]: monitoring battery system of EV to determine whether the batteries are sufficiently charged and factoring in total power consumption to adjust charge rate accordingly).
As per claim 16, Lewchuk/Gaertner further teaches the method of claim 12, wherein in response to determining that the available power is insufficient and/or that the diversity parameter is above the predetermined threshold, the available power is distributed non-uniformly among the plurality of EVSE (See Lewchuk Figs. 48-50 and paras. [0309-310] and [0360]: prioritizing charging for specific vehicle of multiple vehicles; see also Gaertner paras. [0083]: maximum and minimum current that can charge an AV, including a range of values).
As per claim 17, Lewchuk/Gaertner further teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the available power is distributed based on predicted demand, schedule, and/or durations associated with each of the plurality of EVSE (See Lewchuk paras. [0330-331]: prediction generation of charging load and power generation at different times of day).
As per claim 18, Lewchuk/Gaertner further teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the available power is distributed to respect at least one defined condition comprising at least one of: minimizing peak power, minimizing charging time, obeying demand response command, obeying regulatory requirements, obeying emergency user orders, and obeying peak demand circumvention orders (See Lewchuk paras. [0268] and [0375-385]: various requirements to optimize homeowner goals, including regulatory requirements, reducing consumption, etc. This includes configuring the system to limit apparent peak demand).
As per claim 19, , Lewchuk/Gaertner further teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the plurality of EVSE is divided in a plurality of zones, wherein the minimizing peak power and/or the minimizing charging time comprises one of: distributing the available power to one of the plurality of zones, and distributing the available power to more than one of the plurality of zones (See Lewchuk Figs. 44, 48, 49, 52, and paras. [0229] and [0309]: prioritizing charging loads, including based on rooms or other categories. This includes prioritizing when vehicles will be charged as well).
As per claim 20, Lewchuk/Gaertner further teaches method of claim 18, comprising: providing the state data as input to a machine learning model trained to output at least one of a predicted demand, a schedule optimizing the at least one defined condition, and one or more predicted charging durations; computing, from the one or more predicted charging durations, a corresponding authorized draw for each of the EV-connected EVSE; and sending a control signal to the EV-connected EVSE authorizing each EV-connected EVSE to operate at the corresponding authorized draw (See Lewchuk paras. [0345-349]: determining extent to which EV charging is allowed, and control the prioritization of EV charging).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but, assuming the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are overcome, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 2 requires multiple different determinations and scenarios for control signals that are not collectively taught by the prior art of record. Contrast this with claim 12, which, as discussed above, contains conditional/contingent claim language and therefore doesn’t require any of the limitations. Should Applicant cure those issues by having each determination step explicitly occur, the method of claim 12 would be allowable as well. Examiner notes that every dependent claim 5-10 is covered by the prior art, as demonstrated by similar claims 15-20, 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