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 .
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 7/31/2024
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the neutral line" in line 5 and “the fourth key” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the keys A, B, C" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the neutral line" in 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9, 12, 15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. USPGPUB 2019/0184850 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Verheijen et al. USPGPUB 2023/0356615 A1 (hereinafter Verheijen).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a system (Par. [0058], “In certain embodiments, the system is an unbalanced 3-phase system, where the capacity constraints are quadratic”) comprising:
an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) for charging an electric vehicle (EV) (Par. [0056], “EVSE generally can be any device which brings power to and/or fills an EVs battery, and are an intermediate between an EV and a power source.”), the EVSE including a three-phase transformer for sending energy to the EV (Par. [0118], “EVSEs are connected to three-phase circuits … the secondary side of a distribution transformer can be modeled as a three-phase voltage source on the left in Wye configuration that supplies a set of three-phase loads (charging stations) in parallel in Delta configuration”); and
an edge environment that is coupled to the EVSE (Par. [0056], “An adaptive charging station (ACS) is a smart version of electrical vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) having dynamic adjustment features”; Par. [0072], “adaptive charging stations can use adaptive charging station controllers”; Par. [0074], “the ACS controller 300 can perform calculations to distribute charging capacity between linked ACSs upstream and downstream within an ACN.” –ACS corresponds to the EVSE, and the ACS controller corresponds to the edge environment because the ACS controller performs charging-capacity calculations for the ACS and includes processor/memory/software.), wherein the edge environment includes a computing device that includes a memory component and a processor (par. [0075], “the ACS controller includes at least one processor 302, an I/O interface 304, and memory 306”), wherein the memory component stores logic that, when executed by the computing device, causes the system to perform at least the following (Par. [0075], “the memory includes software including EV charging application 308 as well as EV parameters 310, adaptive charging parameters 312, and energy discovery protocol parameters 314”):
receive configuration information associated with the EVSE (Par. [0075], “An ACS can calculate charging parameters by using a combination of its own electric vehicle parameters, adaptive charging parameters, and/or energy discovery protocol parameters received through the I/O interface” – energy discovery protocol parameters received through the I/O interface corresponds to configuration information associated with the ACS/EVSE because the parameters are used in determining its charging parameters.);
generate an optimization problem for the EVSE (Par. [0058], “an EV model is used to construct and solve a linear program (LP) over a rolling time window”; Par. [0105], “Many embodiments use a quadratic program to compute the charging rates for a set of EVs over a time period.”; Par. [0108], “the basic form of a quadratic program (QP) to compute the charging rates over [1, T] these EVs is: … where c(r) is a convex quadratic cost function”; Par. [0109], “An objective function of a QP framework may compute charging rates for EV s based on the capacity constraints of a particular ACN” – Lee generates the optimization problem by constructing the LP/QP from the EV charging-rate variables, objective function, and applicable capacity constraints to determine charging rates for the EVSEs.);
solve the optimization problem to generate a trajectory for the three-phase transformer (Par. [0087], “EV model that is used to construct and solve a LP at each time t to compute the charging rates r(t+1), r(t+2), …, r(T+1) over the rolling window”; Par. [0116], “Solving the above QP subject to the specified constraints can provide a time sequence of charging rates for each EV”; Par. [0127], “The power rating may be the maximum power the transformer can handle on the primary or secondary side. It implies a capacity limit on each phase wire on the primary as well as secondary side. In many embodiments, these limits are used as capacity constraints on the charging currents when determining charging rates for each EV.” – The resulting time sequence of charging rates corresponds to the claimed trajectory, and the trajectory is for the three-phase transformer because the transformer limits constrain the generated charging rates.); and
cause implementation of the trajectory on the EVSE (Fig. 4, Par. [0081], “for the period t+1, charge all the active EVs at the calculated rates r(t+1):=(ri(t+ 1), for all EV i);”).
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the configuration information includes a phase assignment for the EVSE; and
determine whether the phase assignment is labeled as unknown, wherein the phase assignment of unknown was applied in response to a determination that a previous phase assignment was invalid or missing.
However, Verheijen teaches wherein the configuration information includes a phase assignment for the EVSE (Par. [0006], “To which phase of the power distribution system the electric vehicle connects may depend on the orientation with which a plug of the charging cable is inserted into a socket of the EVSE and/or may depend on how the EVSE is connected to the power distribution system, i.e. to which phases of the power distribution system the respective (female) connectors of the EVSE's socket are connected.”; Par. [0092], “the method comprises determining the connection configuration for electric vehicle B by determining that it is connected to phase II and not to phases I and III.”); and
determine whether the phase assignment is labeled as unknown (Par. [0009], “if the connection configuration for a single-phase-charging electric vehicle is unknown, then, for safety reasons, it has to be assumed during the allocation of charging resources that the electric vehicle is connected to all phases”; Par. [0120] – [0121], “FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment wherein first a certain amount of charging resources is allocated to electric vehicle C. Because the connection configuration of electric vehicle at that point in time is unknown, each total amount of allocated charging resources for each phase contains said certain amount as indicated in the top left diagram. However, at some point in time, the connection configuration for electric vehicle may be determined to be that it is only connected to phase I. Then, for phases II and III, the total amount of allocated charging resources is reduced by said certain amount as shown in the top right diagram.” – Verheijen determines whether the phase assignment is unknown because the system selects between an unknown configuration allocation procedure and a known-phase allocation procedure based on whether the phase connection has been determined.), wherein the phase assignment of unknown was applied in response to a determination that a previous phase assignment was invalid or missing (Par. [0015], “If the connection configuration for an electric vehicle cannot be determined with certainty, then this connection configuration may be determined to be a default connection configuration.” – Replacing the missing or invalid previous phase assignment with an “unknown” phase assignment is a predictable implementation of Verheijen’s default configuration handling).
Lee and Verheijen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to managing EV charging resources subject to charging infrastructure capacity constraints.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above adaptive EV charging optimization system, as taught by Lee, and incorporate connection configuration determination and default/unknown treatment, as taught by Verheijen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve efficiency in allocating charging resources in a charging system and to prevent unsafe allocation of charging resources when the phase configuration is unknown, as suggested by Verheijen (Par. [0004]; Par. [0009]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Verheijen further teaches determining that the phase assignment is not labeled as unknown (Fig. 4, Par. [0120] – [0121], “Because the connection configuration of electric vehicle at that point in time is unknown, each total amount of allocated charging resources for each phase contains said certain amount as indicated in the top left diagram. However, at some point in time, the connection configuration for electric vehicle may be determined to be that it is only connected to phase I. Then, for phases II and III, the total amount of allocated charging resources is reduced by said certain amount as shown in the top right diagram.” – Verheijen determines that the phase assignment is no longer unknown when the system identifies the specific phase-I connection and applies phase-specific charging-resource allocation.).
Verheijen does not explicitly teach generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image1.png
57
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
44
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Lee teaches generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image1.png
57
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
44
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Par. [0152], “Phase Constraints: A phase constraint pertains to the current along one leg of the delta, i.e. ab, bc, or ca”; Par. [0154], “Certain embodiments can calculate the line currents Ip3 from the phase currents
PNG
media_image3.png
106
119
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where each variable is a phasor … define the set of all EVSEs connected between lines a and b to be Sab, likewise for bc and ca …
PNG
media_image4.png
55
130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”; Par. [0155], “each EVSE as a constant current load with unity power factor, so the phase of each current matches the phase of the corresponding voltage”; Par. [0157], “From (13), the current constraint lIa3l ≤ R3,a becomes a constraints on Iabevse and Icaevse : lIa3l = lIabevse – Icaevsel ≤ R3,a”; Par. [0159], “These constraints translate into constraints on the charging rates ri(t) through (14)” – Lee teaches the same current-constraint structure using different notation. Lee’s Sab, Sbc, Sca correspond to the claimed EVSE/node set Vk, ri(t) corresponds to the claimed charging rate ri(t), known EVSE phase/line contribution of each EVSE current corresponds to the claimed
PNG
media_image5.png
35
19
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and line-current capacity limit R3,a corresponds to the claimed current/line limit Lk(t). Thus, Lee teaches summing EVSE charging-rate/current contributions according to known phase-line assignments and constraining the resulting phasor line current to be below a line-current capacity limit, which corresponds to generating the optimization problem according to the claimed constraint.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lee and Verheijen further teaches wherein generating the optimization problem for the EVSE includes utilizing
PNG
media_image6.png
61
1003
media_image6.png
Greyscale
to generate the optimization problem.
Lee teaches the known-phase portion of the claimed constraint
PNG
media_image7.png
49
166
media_image7.png
Greyscale
because Lee teaches grouping EVSEs by known phase/line connections and calculating phasor line-current constraints (Par. [0154], “Certain embodiments can calculate the line currents Ip3 from the phase currents
PNG
media_image3.png
106
119
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where each variable is a phasor … define the set of all EVSEs connected between lines a and b to be Sab, likewise for bc and ca …
PNG
media_image4.png
55
130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”; Par. [0155], “each EVSE as a constant current load with unity power factor, so the phase of each current matches the phase of the corresponding voltage”; Par. [0157], “From (13), the current constraint lIa3l ≤ R3,a becomes a constraints on Iabevse and Icaevse : lIa3l = lIabevse – Icaevsel ≤ R3,a”; Par. [0159], “These constraints translate into constraints on the charging rates ri-(t) through (14).” – Lee’s calculated line current/current constraint corresponds to the claimed
PNG
media_image8.png
37
76
media_image8.png
Greyscale
because Lee calculates line currents for the EVSE phase groups and constrains the magnitude of those line currents relative to a current limit. Lee’s known EVSE phase groups correspond to
PNG
media_image9.png
18
21
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, Lee’s charging rates correspond to ri(t), Lee’s phasor line-current contribution corresponds to
PNG
media_image10.png
42
28
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, and Lee’s current limit corresponds to Lk(t), Lee’s EVSE/node/resource group corresponds to k, and Lee’s indexed phase/current constraints correspond to
PNG
media_image11.png
33
119
media_image11.png
Greyscale
).
Lee further teaches the conservative current-magnitude summation portion of the claimed constraint,
PNG
media_image12.png
42
122
media_image12.png
Greyscale
because Lee teaches conservative capacity constraints based on sums of charging rates/current magnitudes (Par. [0111], “if a set of 8 chargers are fed by a cable with capacity 80A, the corresponding capacity constraint is
PNG
media_image13.png
46
99
media_image13.png
Greyscale
… Sometimes Si may be used to denote the set of EVs that share resource I”; Par. [0160], “Simpler but more conservative constraints can be derived by observing
PNG
media_image14.png
41
317
media_image14.png
Greyscale
” – Lee teaches summed current magnitudes as a conservative bound.).
Verheijen teaches that when the phase/connection configuration is unknown, the load should be treated conservatively for safety by assuming it may be connected to the phases (Par. [0009], “if the connection configuration for a single-phase-charging electric vehicle is unknown, then, for safety reasons, it has to be assumed during the allocation of charging resources that the electric vehicle is connected to all phases”). Thus, Verheijen’s unknown-phase EVSEs correspond to Uk, and it would have been obvious to include the unknown-phase EVSE current magnitudes as the conservative term
PNG
media_image15.png
31
118
media_image15.png
Greyscale
in Lee’s current constraint.
Therefore, Lee in view of Verheijen teaches or suggests generating the optimization problem because Lee teaches the known-phase phasor-current constraint and conservative current-magnitude summation, and Verheijen teaches treating unknown-phase EVSEs conservatively.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lee further teaches generate a current object to store a current draw from the EVSE (Par. [0099], “ri(t) may be used to sometimes denote power, and sometimes current. When ri(t) refers to current, it is the RMS value (which is equal to the magnitude of the complex current phasor).”; Par. [0151], “each EVSE is modeled as a controllable current source with unity power factor.” – Lee’s charging-rate/current variable ri(t) and EVSE current-source model correspond to a current object storing current draw from the EVSE.);
create a new current object representing a sum of current objects from equipment below the EVSE (Par. [0151], “lump all EVSEs between common phases into a single load represented by current phasors”; Par. [0154], “define the set of all EVSEs connected between lines a and b to be Sab, likewise for bc and ca”; Par. [0111], “if a set of 8 chargers are fed by a cable with capacity 80A, the corresponding capacity constraint is
PNG
media_image13.png
46
99
media_image13.png
Greyscale
… Sometimes Si may be used to denote the set of EVs that share resource I”; Par. [0113], “the capacity constraint on the subpanel is:
PNG
media_image16.png
50
100
media_image16.png
Greyscale
” – Lee sums EVSE current/charging-rate contributions from multiple EVSEs sharing a phase/resource, which corresponds to creating a summed current object for equipment below the EVSE.);
create a constraint that a magnitude of a current in that line is less than a predetermined network node limit (Par. [0153], “Line Constraints: A line constraint pertains to the current along each line i.e. a, b, or c.”; Par. [0157], “From (13), the current constraint lIa3l ≤ R3,a becomes a constraints on Iabevse and Icaevse : lIa3l = lIabevse – Icaevsel ≤ R3,a”’; Par. [0111], “the corresponding capacity constraint is
PNG
media_image13.png
46
99
media_image13.png
Greyscale
” – Lee constrains line-current magnitude and/or summed current draw below a resource/current capacity limit, which corresponds to the claimed predetermined network node limit.); and
add network node constraints to other constraints (Par. [0109], “An objective function of a QP framework may compute charging rates for EV s based on the capacity constraints of a particular ACN … the QP may use linear capacity constraints or quadratic capacity constraints when determining an optimal EV charging rate.”; Par. [0110], “It may be convenient to express the linear capacity constraints (ld) in matrix form: Ar(t)≤P(t)” – Lee incorporates the network/resource capacity constraints into the QP optimization problem.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Verheijen further teaches wherein the logic further causes the system to determine a phase of the EVSE (Par. [0092], “the method comprises determining the connection configuration for electric vehicle B by determining that it is connected to phase II and not to phases I and III … based on the determined connection configuration, the control system 100 can allocate charging resources to the electric vehicles A, B, C, D”), wherein the phase of the EVSE includes one of the following: ABC; or unknown (Par. [0091], “Electric vehicle A is connected to all three phases I, II, III of the power distribution system. Electric vehicle D is connected to all three phases as well. However, electric vehicle B is only connected to phase II of the polyphase power distribution system and not to phase I and not to phase III”; Par. [0008], “Typically, the connection configuration for a connected electric vehicle is unknown.” -Verheijen’s determination of whether the electric vehicle connected to the EVSE is connected to one phase, all phases, or an unknown configuration corresponds to determining a phase of the EVSE.).
Lee further teaches wherein the phase of the EVSE includes one of the following: A, B, C; AB, BC, CA (Par. [0154], “define the set of all EVSEs connected between lines a and b to be Sab, likewise for bc and ca …
PNG
media_image4.png
55
130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” – Lee’s ab, bc, and ca phase-line groups correspond to the claimed AB, BC, and CA phase categories.; Par. [0138], “Three phase wires (labeled a, b, c) and a neutral wire (labeled n) are shown … The voltage magnitude between a phase wire and the neutral is 120V” – phase wires a, b, and c correspond to the claimed phase labels A, B, and C.).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches a method (Par. [0056], “methods for supplying power to a set of electric vehicles using electric vehicle supply equipment”) comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, configuration information from an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) for charging an electric vehicle (EV) utilizing a three-phase transformer (Par. [0056], “EVSE generally can be any device which brings power to and/or fills an EVs battery”; Par. [0075], “the ACS controller includes at least one processor 302, an I/O interface 304, and memory 306 … the memory includes software including EV charging application 308 as well as EV parameters 310, adaptive charging parameters 312, and energy discovery protocol parameters 314. An ACS can calculate charging parameters by using a combination of its own electric vehicle parameters, adaptive charging parameters, and/or energy discovery protocol parameters received through the I/O interface”; Par. [0118], “EVSEs are connected to three-phase circuits” – charging/adaptive charging parameters correspond to configuration information, and ACS controller corresponds to the computing device.);
generating, by the computing device, an optimization problem for the EVSE (Par. [0105], “Many embodiments use a quadratic program to compute the charging rates for a set of EVs over a time period.”; Par. [0108], “the basic form of a quadratic program (QP) to compute the charging rates over [1, T] these EVs is: … where c(r) is a convex quadratic cost function”; Par. [0109], “An objective function of a QP framework may compute charging rates for EV s based on the capacity constraints of a particular ACN” – Lee’s optimization problem calculates EVSE charging rates/limits over time subject to three-phase transformer/capacity constraints);
solving, by the computing device, the optimization problem to generate a trajectory for the three-phase transformer (Par. [0008], “the charging rates for the plurality of electric vehicle nodes are a time series of timing rates provided to each electric vehicle node controller.”; Claim 5, “the time series of timing rates can be evaluated by the one or more centralized computing systems using the following expression: … T is an optimization horizon, ri(t) is the calculated charging rate, r̄I is a maximum rate, Pl(t) denotes the capacities of resources l at time t …”; Par. [0127], “The power rating may be the maximum power the transformer can handle on the primary or secondary side. It implies a capacity limit on each phase wire on the primary as well as secondary side. In many embodiments, these limits are used as capacity constraints on the charging currents when determining charging rates for each EV.” – The time series of calculated charging rates corresponds to the claimed trajectory because Applicant’s specification describes a trajectory as an EVSE output schedule for a predetermined time period that may impose charging limits on what the EV can use from the EVSE. Lee’s trajectory is for the three-phase transformer because Lee teaches that transformer power limits imply phase-wire capacity limits used as constraints when determining charging rates.); and
causing, by the computing device, implementation of the trajectory on the EVSE (Fig. 4, Par. [0081], “for the period t+1, charge all the active EVs at the calculated rates r(t+1):=(ri(t+ 1), for all EV i);”).
Lee does not explicitly teach determining, by the computing device, whether a previous phase assignment is missing or invalid;
in response to determining that the previous phase assignment is missing or invalid, replacing, by the computing device, the previous phase assignment with the phase assignment of unknown; and
determining, by the computing device, whether a phase assignment is labeled as unknown;
However, Verheijen teaches determining, by the computing device, whether a previous phase assignment is missing or invalid (Par. [0010], “discovering and/or deducing and/or finding out an unknown connection configuration”; Par. [0014], “Determining the connection configuration may be performed based on a known installation design of the EVSE to which the first electric vehicle is connected and based on a known configuration of a plug of the electric vehicle's charging cable”; Par. [0015], “If the connection configuration for an electric vehicle cannot be determined with certainty, then this connection configuration may be determined to be a default connection configuration … determining a default connection configuration for an electric vehicle may be understood as assuming that the electric vehicle is connected to a predetermined set of one or more phases of the polyphase power distribution system” – a connection configuration that cannot be determined with certainty corresponds to determining that a previous phase assignment is missing or invalid.);
in response to determining that the previous phase assignment is missing or invalid, replacing, by the computing device, the previous phase assignment with the phase assignment of unknown (Par. [0015], “If the connection configuration for an electric vehicle cannot be determined with certainty, then this connection configuration may be determined to be a default connection configuration.” – Replacing the missing or invalid previous phase assignment with an “unknown” phase assignment is a predictable implementation of Verheijen’s default configuration handling.) and
determining, by the computing device, whether a phase assignment is labeled as unknown (Par. [0009], “if the connection configuration for a single-phase-charging electric vehicle is unknown, then, for safety reasons, it has to be assumed during the allocation of charging resources that the electric vehicle is connected to all phases”; Par. [0120] – [0121], “FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment wherein first a certain amount of charging resources is allocated to electric vehicle C. Because the connection configuration of electric vehicle at that point in time is unknown, each total amount of allocated charging resources for each phase contains said certain amount as indicated in the top left diagram. However, at some point in time, the connection configuration for electric vehicle may be determined to be that it is only connected to phase I. Then, for phases II and III, the total amount of allocated charging resources is reduced by said certain amount as shown in the top right diagram.” – Verheijen determines whether the phase assignment is unknown because the system selects between an unknown configuration allocation procedure and a known-phase allocation procedure based on whether the phase connection has been determined.).
Lee and Verheijen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to managing EV charging resources subject to charging infrastructure capacity constraints.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above adaptive EV charging optimization system, as taught by Lee, and incorporate connection configuration determination and default/unknown treatment, as taught by Verheijen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve efficiency in allocating charging resources in a charging system and to prevent unsafe allocation of charging resources when the phase configuration is unknown, as suggested by Verheijen (Par. [0004]; Par. [0009]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lee, and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
wherein generating the optimization problem for the EVSE includes utilizing
PNG
media_image6.png
61
1003
media_image6.png
Greyscale
to generate the optimization problem.
Lee teaches the known-phase portion of the claimed constraint
PNG
media_image7.png
49
166
media_image7.png
Greyscale
because Lee teaches grouping EVSEs by known phase/line connections and calculating phasor line-current constraints (Par. [0154], “Certain embodiments can calculate the line currents Ip3 from the phase currents
PNG
media_image3.png
106
119
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where each variable is a phasor … define the set of all EVSEs connected between lines a and b to be Sab, likewise for bc and ca …
PNG
media_image4.png
55
130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”; Par. [0155], “each EVSE as a constant current load with unity power factor, so the phase of each current matches the phase of the corresponding voltage”; Par. [0157], “From (13), the current constraint lIa3l ≤ R3,a becomes a constraints on Iabevse and Icaevse : lIa3l = lIabevse – Icaevsel ≤ R3,a”; Par. [0159], “These constraints translate into constraints on the charging rates ri-(t) through (14).” – Lee’s calculated line current/current constraint corresponds to the claimed
PNG
media_image8.png
37
76
media_image8.png
Greyscale
because Lee calculates line currents for the EVSE phase groups and constrains the magnitude of those line currents relative to a current limit. Lee’s known EVSE phase groups correspond to
PNG
media_image9.png
18
21
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, Lee’s charging rates correspond to ri(t), Lee’s phasor line-current contribution corresponds to
PNG
media_image10.png
42
28
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, and Lee’s current limit corresponds to Lk(t), Lee’s EVSE/node/resource group corresponds to k, and Lee’s indexed phase/current constraints correspond to
PNG
media_image11.png
33
119
media_image11.png
Greyscale
).
Lee further teaches the conservative current-magnitude summation portion of the claimed constraint,
PNG
media_image12.png
42
122
media_image12.png
Greyscale
because Lee teaches conservative capacity constraints based on sums of charging rates/current magnitudes (Par. [0111], “if a set of 8 chargers are fed by a cable with capacity 80A, the corresponding capacity constraint is
PNG
media_image13.png
46
99
media_image13.png
Greyscale
… Sometimes Si may be used to denote the set of EVs that share resource I”; Par. [0160], “Simpler but more conservative constraints can be derived by observing
PNG
media_image14.png
41
317
media_image14.png
Greyscale
” – Lee teaches summed current magnitudes as a conservative bound.).
Verheijen teaches that when the phase/connection configuration is unknown, the load should be treated conservatively for safety by assuming it may be connected to the phases (Par. [0009], “if the connection configuration for a single-phase-charging electric vehicle is unknown, then, for safety reasons, it has to be assumed during the allocation of charging resources that the electric vehicle is connected to all phases”). Thus, Verheijen’s unknown-phase EVSEs correspond to Uk, and it would have been obvious to include the unknown-phase EVSE current magnitudes as the conservative term
PNG
media_image15.png
31
118
media_image15.png
Greyscale
in Lee’s current constraint.
Therefore, Lee in view of Verheijen teaches or suggests generating the optimization problem because Lee teaches the known-phase phasor-current constraint and conservative current-magnitude summation, and Verheijen teaches treating unknown-phase EVSEs conservatively.
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that (Par. [0075], “the ACS controller includes at least one processor 302, an I/O interface 304, and memory 306”), when executed by a processor of a processing system, cause the processing system to perform at least the following (Par. [0075], “the memory includes software including EV charging application 308 as well as EV parameters 310, adaptive charging parameters 312, and energy discovery protocol parameters 314”):
receive configuration information from an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) for charging an electric vehicle (EV) utilizing a three-phase transformer (Par. [0056], “EVSE generally can be any device which brings power to and/or fills an EVs battery”; Par. [0075], “the ACS controller includes at least one processor 302, an I/O interface 304, and memory 306 … the memory includes software including EV charging application 308 as well as EV parameters 310, adaptive charging parameters 312, and energy discovery protocol parameters 314. An ACS can calculate charging parameters by using a combination of its own electric vehicle parameters, adaptive charging parameters, and/or energy discovery protocol parameters received through the I/O interface”; Par. [0118], “EVSEs are connected to three-phase circuits” – charging/adaptive charging parameters correspond to configuration information, and ACS controller corresponds to the computing device. Energy discovery protocol parameters received through the I/O interface corresponds to configuration information associated with the ACS/EVSE because the parameters are used in determining its charging parameters.);
generate an optimization problem for the EVSE (Par. [0058], “an EV model is used to construct and solve a linear program (LP) over a rolling time window”; Par. [0105], “Many embodiments use a quadratic program to compute the charging rates for a set of EVs over a time period.”; Par. [0108], “the basic form of a quadratic program (QP) to compute the charging rates over [1, T] these EVs is: … where c(r) is a convex quadratic cost function”; Par. [0109], “An objective function of a QP framework may compute charging rates for EV s based on the capacity constraints of a particular ACN” – Lee generates the optimization problem by constructing the LP/QP from the EV charging-rate variables, objective function, and applicable capacity constraints to determine charging rates for the EVSEs);
solve the optimization problem to generate a trajectory for the three-phase transformer (Par. [0087], “EV model that is used to construct and solve a LP at each time t to compute the charging rates r(t+1), r(t+2), …, r(T+1) over the rolling window”; Par. [0116], “Solving the above QP subject to the specified constraints can provide a time sequence of charging rates for each EV”; Par. [0127], “The power rating may be the maximum power the transformer can handle on the primary or secondary side. It implies a capacity limit on each phase wire on the primary as well as secondary side. In many embodiments, these limits are used as capacity constraints on the charging currents when determining charging rates for each EV.” – The resulting time sequence of charging rates corresponds to the claimed trajectory, and the trajectory is for the three-phase transformer because the transformer limits constrain the generated charging rates.); and
cause implementation of the trajectory on the EVSE (Fig. 4, Par. [0081], “for the period t+1, charge all the active EVs at the calculated rates r(t+1):=(ri(t+ 1), for all EV i)").
Lee does not explicitly teach determine whether a previous phase assignment is missing or invalid;
in response to determining that the previous phase assignment is missing or invalid, replace the previous phase assignment with the phase assignment of unknown; and
determine whether a phase assignment is labeled as unknown;
However, Verheijen teaches determine whether a previous phase assignment is missing or invalid (Par. [0010], “discovering and/or deducing and/or finding out an unknown connection configuration”; Par. [0014], “Determining the connection configuration may be performed based on a known installation design of the EVSE to which the first electric vehicle is connected and based on a known configuration of a plug of the electric vehicle's charging cable”; Par. [0015], “If the connection configuration for an electric vehicle cannot be determined with certainty, then this connection configuration may be determined to be a default connection configuration … determining a default connection configuration for an electric vehicle may be understood as assuming that the electric vehicle is connected to a predetermined set of one or more phases of the polyphase power distribution system” – a connection configuration that cannot be determined with certainty corresponds to determining that a previous phase assignment is missing or invalid.);
in response to determining that the previous phase assignment is missing or invalid, replace the previous phase assignment with the phase assignment of unknown (Par. [0015], “If the connection configuration for an electric vehicle cannot be determined with certainty, then this connection configuration may be determined to be a default connection configuration.” – Replacing the missing or invalid previous phase assignment with an “unknown” phase assignment is a predictable implementation of Verheijen’s default configuration handling.); and
determine whether a phase assignment is labeled as unknown (Par. [0009], “if the connection configuration for a single-phase-charging electric vehicle is unknown, then, for safety reasons, it has to be assumed during the allocation of charging resources that the electric vehicle is connected to all phases”; Fig. 4, Par. [0120] – [0121], “Because the connection configuration of electric vehicle at that point in time is unknown, each total amount of allocated charging resources for each phase contains said certain amount as indicated in the top left diagram. However, at some point in time, the connection configuration for electric vehicle may be determined to be that it is only connected to phase I. Then, for phases II and III, the total amount of allocated charging resources is reduced by said certain amount as shown in the top right diagram.” – Verheijen determines whether the connection/phase configuration is unknown in order to apply conservative charging-resource allocation until the actual phase connection is determined.).
Lee and Verheijen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to managing EV charging resources subject to charging infrastructure capacity constraints.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above adaptive EV charging optimization system, as taught by Lee, and incorporate connection configuration determination and default/unknown treatment, as taught by Verheijen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve efficiency in allocating charging resources in a charging system and to prevent unsafe allocation of charging resources when the phase configuration is unknown, as suggested by Verheijen (Par. [0004]; Par. [0009]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lee, and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
wherein generating the optimization problem for the EVSE includes utilizing
PNG
media_image6.png
61
1003
media_image6.png
Greyscale
to generate the optimization problem.
Lee teaches the known-phase portion of the claimed constraint
PNG
media_image7.png
49
166
media_image7.png
Greyscale
because Lee teaches grouping EVSEs by known phase/line connections and calculating phasor line-current constraints (Par. [0154], “Certain embodiments can calculate the line currents Ip3 from the phase currents
PNG
media_image3.png
106
119
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where each variable is a phasor … define the set of all EVSEs connected between lines a and b to be Sab, likewise for bc and ca …
PNG
media_image4.png
55
130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”; Par. [0155], “each EVSE as a constant current load with unity power factor, so the phase of each current matches the phase of the corresponding voltage”; Par. [0157], “From (13), the current constraint lIa3l ≤ R3,a becomes a constraints on Iabevse and Icaevse : lIa3l = lIabevse – Icaevsel ≤ R3,a”; Par. [0159], “These constraints translate into constraints on the charging rates ri-(t) through (14).” – Lee’s calculated line current/current constraint corresponds to the claimed
PNG
media_image8.png
37
76
media_image8.png
Greyscale
because Lee calculates line currents for the EVSE phase groups and constrains the magnitude of those line currents relative to a current limit. Lee’s known EVSE phase groups correspond to
PNG
media_image9.png
18
21
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, Lee’s charging rates correspond to ri(t), Lee’s phasor line-current contribution corresponds to
PNG
media_image10.png
42
28
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, and Lee’s current limit corresponds to Lk(t), Lee’s EVSE/node/resource group corresponds to k, and Lee’s indexed phase/current constraints correspond to
PNG
media_image11.png
33
119
media_image11.png
Greyscale
).
Lee further teaches the conservative current-magnitude summation portion of the claimed constraint,
PNG
media_image12.png
42
122
media_image12.png
Greyscale
because Lee teaches conservative capacity constraints based on sums of charging rates/current magnitudes (Par. [0111], “if a set of 8 chargers are fed by a cable with capacity 80A, the corresponding capacity constraint is
PNG
media_image13.png
46
99
media_image13.png
Greyscale
… Sometimes Si may be used to denote the set of EVs that share resource I”; Par. [0160], “Simpler but more conservative constraints can be derived by observing
PNG
media_image14.png
41
317
media_image14.png
Greyscale
” – Lee teaches summed current magnitudes as a conservative bound.).
Verheijen teaches that when the phase/connection configuration is unknown, the load should be treated conservatively for safety by assuming it may be connected to the phases (Par. [0009], “if the connection configuration for a single-phase-charging electric vehicle is unknown, then, for safety reasons, it has to be assumed during the allocation of charging resources that the electric vehicle is connected to all phases”). Thus, Verheijen’s unknown-phase EVSEs correspond to Uk, and it would have been obvious to include the unknown-phase EVSE current magnitudes as the conservative term
PNG
media_image15.png
31
118
media_image15.png
Greyscale
in Lee’s current constraint.
Therefore, Lee in view of Verheijen teaches or suggests generating the optimization problem because Lee teaches the known-phase phasor-current constraint and conservative current-magnitude summation, and Verheijen teaches treating unknown-phase EVSEs conservatively.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. USPGPUB 2019/0184850 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Verheijen et al. USPGPUB 2023/0356615 A1 (hereinafter Verheijen), and further in view of Miftakhov USPGPUB 2019/0061546 A1 (hereinafter Miftakhov).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Verheijen further teaches determining whether the previous phase assignment is missing or invalid (Par. [0010], “discovering and/or deducing and/or finding out an unknown connection configuration”; Par. [0014], “Determining the connection configuration may be performed based on a known installation design of the EVSE to which the first electric vehicle is connected and based on a known configuration of a plug of the electric vehicle's charging cable”; Par. [0015], “If the connection configuration for an electric vehicle cannot be determined with certainty, then this connection configuration may be determined to be a default connection configuration … determining a default connection configuration for an electric vehicle may be understood as assuming that the electric vehicle is connected to a predetermined set of one or more phases of the polyphase power distribution system” – a connection configuration that cannot be determined with certainty corresponds to determining that a previous phase assignment is missing or invalid), and in response to determining that the previous phase assignment is missing or invalid, replacing the previous phase assignment with the phase assignment of unknown (Par. [0015], “If the connection configuration for an electric vehicle cannot be determined with certainty, then this connection configuration may be determined to be a default connection configuration.” – Replacing the missing or invalid previous phase assignment with an “unknown” phase assignment is a predictable implementation of Verheijen’s default configuration handling.).
Lee and Verheijen do not explicitly teach a cloud environment that is remote from the edge environment, the cloud environment storing an application program interface (API) for receiving the configuration information from the EVSE.
However, Miftakhov teaches a cloud environment that is remote from the edge environment (Fig. 1, Par. [0033], “the vehicle charging network shown in FIG. 1 comprises a cloud control server 105 for controlling multiple EVSE 100 via a data network … The cloud control server 105 may send and/or receive data and send commands to the application programming interface of the EVSE 100 via the data network, such as Internet” – the cloud environment is remote from the edge environment because it communicates with the EVSE/edge-side charging equipment through a data network/internet rather than being part of the local EVSE/edge-side equipment.), the cloud environment storing an application program interface (API) for receiving the configuration information from the EVSE (Par. [0035], “all the above vehicle components, including the vehicle battery 107, the charger 106 and the battery management system 108 as well as the EVSE 100 are configured to exchange data and commands with the cloud control server 105 via the aforesaid application programming interface”; Par. [0042], “the EVSE 100 is provided with an application programming interface (API) for reporting telemetry of the power grid 102. In one embodiment this application programming interface could be used by software executing on the cloud control server 105 to receive near real-time information on the power quality of the grid 102, including, without limitation, voltage, frequency, and waveform of the grid power”; Par. [0043], “many other operating parameters may be gathered and/or controlled using the inventive application programming interface (API)” – Although Miftakhov describes the API provided by the EVSE, Miftakhov also teaches that software executing on the cloud control server uses the API to receive information from the EVSE. It would have been obvious to store the corresponding API communication logic/function calls in the cloud control server so that the cloud control server can receive EVSE information through the EVSE API.).
Lee, Verheijen, and Miftakhov are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to EV charging systems and managing EV charging through networked control systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above adaptive EV charging optimization system, as taught by Lee and Verheijen, and incorporate a cloud environment and API communication architecture, as taught by Miftakhov.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve interfacing with various electric vehicle components, as suggested by Miftakhov (Par. [0003]).
Claim(s) 4-6, 13-14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. USPGPUB 2019/0184850 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Verheijen et al. USPGPUB 2023/0356615 A1 (hereinafter Verheijen), and further in view of Kempton et al. USPGPUB 2011/0202418 A1 (hereinafter Kempton).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Verheijen further teaches in response to determining that the phase assignment is labeled as unknown (Par. [0009], “if the connection configuration for a single-phase-charging electric vehicle is unknown, then, for safety reasons, it has to be assumed during the allocation of charging resources that the electric vehicle is connected to all phases”; Par. [0120] – [0121], “FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment wherein first a certain amount of charging resources is allocated to electric vehicle C. Because the connection configuration of electric vehicle at that point in time is unknown, each total amount of allocated charging resources for each phase contains said certain amount as indicated in the top left diagram. However, at some point in time, the connection configuration for electric vehicle may be determined to be that it is only connected to phase I. Then, for phases II and III, the total amount of allocated charging resources is reduced by said certain amount as shown in the top right diagram.” – Verheijen determines whether the phase assignment is unknown because the system selects between an unknown configuration allocation procedure and a known-phase allocation procedure based on whether the phase connection has been determined.).
Verheijen does not explicitly teach the logic further causes the system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE and, in response to determining there are not generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE, generate the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image17.png
41
227
media_image17.png
Greyscale
.
However, Lee teaches generate the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image17.png
41
227
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(Par. [0111], “if a set of 8 chargers are fed by a cable with capacity 80A, the corresponding capacity constraint is
PNG
media_image13.png
46
99
media_image13.png
Greyscale
… Sometimes Si may be used to denote the set of EVs that share resource I”; Par. [0113], “the capacity constraint on the subpanel is:
PNG
media_image16.png
50
100
media_image16.png
Greyscale
” – Lee’s set of EVs/chargers sharing a resource corresponds to the claimed Vk, Lee’s charging rate ri(t) corresponds to the claimed ri(t), and Lee’s resource/cable/subpanel capacity Pl(t)/P2 correspond to the claimed Lk(t).
Verheijen and Lee do not explicitly teach the logic further causes the system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE.
However, Kempton teaches the logic further causes the system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE (Par. [0051], “EVSE attributes may include static and dynamic attributes … The static attributes may include … forward flow limit; reverse flow limit; … The dynamic attributes may include vehicle capabilities, and vehicle authorizations.”; a reverse flow limit indicating the maximum allowable flow of power into EVSE 104 from EVE 102 of a grid-integrated vehicle Par. [0066], “The reverse flow limit may be set to zero to indicate that supply of power to EVSE 104 from grid-integrated vehicle with EVE 102 is not allowed”; Par. [0146], “EVE 102 determines if EVSE 104 authorized it for use in the event of grid power loss, and if it has capabilities to do so. In an exemplary embodiment, VL 103 determines whether an EVSE attribute has been received indicating that EVSE 104 is authorized to receive power (e.g., has been approved by an electrician as having proper equipment installed) in the event of grid power loss. If EVSE 104 is authorized, processing proceeds at step 812. Otherwise, VL 103 discontinues supplying/will not supply power from EVE 102 to EVSE 104.” – A zero reverse-flow limit, lack of authorization, or lack of required EVSE capability corresponds to determining that generator or bidirectional equipment/capability is not available for the EVSE. Therefore, in response to determining that generator or bidirectional equipment/capability is not available, it would have been obvious to use Lee’s non-reverse-flow charging-resource capacity constraint, because the EVSEs are treated as charging loads subject to resource capacity rather than as bidirectional power-flow resources.).
Lee, Verheijen, and Kempton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to electric vehicle charging systems and managing charging/power flow between EVSEs, electric vehicles, and the grid subject to infrastructure capacity and safety constraints.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above adaptive EV charging optimization system, as taught by Lee and Verheijen, and incorporate using EVSE attributes to determine whether reverse/bidirectional power flow through the EVSE is permitted or available, as taught by Kempton.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve efficiency and reliability in managing EV charging resources and grid services, as suggested by Kempton (Par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee, Verheijen, and Kempton teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lee further teaches wherein the EVSE is part of a network with a plurality of network nodes (Par. [0072], “ACSs can connect to the ACN 208 using wired and/or wireless connections 210 … linked adaptive charging stations can distribute available charging capacity between upstream and downstream ACSs in the ACN … ACSs can be connected in various topologies including (but not limited to) hub and spoke, bus, tree, daisy chaining, point-to-point, star, ring, mesh, and/or hybrid topologies.”; Par. [0074], “the ACS controller 300 can perform calculations to distribute charging capacity between linked ACSs upstream and downstream within an ACN.” – ACSSs/EVSEs connected in an ACN with upstream and downstream ACSs correspond to EVSEs in a network with a plurality of network nodes.), wherein generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image17.png
41
227
media_image17.png
Greyscale
includes at least the following:
collecting sums of magnitudes of network nodes below the EVSE in the network (Par. [0111], “if a set of 8 chargers are fed by a cable with capacity 80A, the corresponding capacity constraint is
PNG
media_image13.png
46
99
media_image13.png
Greyscale
… Sometimes, S, may be used to denote the set of EV s that share resource I.”; Fig. 5, Par. [0112], “a panel is fed by a cable with capacity P1 (constant for all time t). It serves a set S-1 of EVs and a subpanel with capacity P2 that serves a set S2 of EVs”; Par. [0113], “Then the capacity constraint on the subpanel is:
PNG
media_image16.png
50
100
media_image16.png
Greyscale
” – Summing of charging rates/current magnitudes for EVs/chargers sharing a downstream resource/subpanel corresponds to collecting sums of magnitudes of network nodes below the EVSE in the network.);
creating a constraint that the sums of magnitudes drawn by the network nodes below the EVSE is less than a current limit ([0111], “if a set of 8 chargers are fed by a cable with capacity 80A, the corresponding capacity constraint is
PNG
media_image13.png
46
99
media_image13.png
Greyscale
”; Par. [0113], “Then the capacity constraint on the subpanel is:
PNG
media_image16.png
50
100
media_image16.png
Greyscale
” – resource/cable/subpanel capacity P1(t) and P2 correspond to the claimed current limit Lk(t), and Lee constrains the summed charging rates/current magnitudes below that limit.); and
adding network node constraints to other constraints for optimization (Par. [0109], “An objective function of a QP framework may compute charging rates for EV s based on the capacity constraints of a particular ACN … the QP may use linear capacity constraints or quadratic capacity constraints when determining an optimal EV charging rate.”; Par. [0110], “It may be convenient to express the linear capacity constraints (ld) in matrix form: Ar(t)≤P(t)” – resource/network-node capacity constraints are added into the QP optimization framework for determining charging rates.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee, and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Verheijen further teaches in response to determining that the phase assignment is labeled as unknown (Par. [0009], “if the connection configuration for a single-phase-charging electric vehicle is unknown, then, for safety reasons, it has to be assumed during the allocation of charging resources that the electric vehicle is connected to all phases”; Par. [0120] – [0121], “FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment wherein first a certain amount of charging resources is allocated to electric vehicle C. Because the connection configuration of electric vehicle at that point in time is unknown, each total amount of allocated charging resources for each phase contains said certain amount as indicated in the top left diagram. However, at some point in time, the connection configuration for electric vehicle may be determined to be that it is only connected to phase I. Then, for phases II and III, the total amount of allocated charging resources is reduced by said certain amount as shown in the top right diagram.” – Verheijen determines whether the phase assignment is unknown because the system selects between an unknown configuration allocation procedure and a known-phase allocation procedure based on whether the phase connection has been determined.), and replace the phase assignment with an unknown label, replace the unknown phase label with phase A (Par. [0015], “determining a default connection configuration for an electric vehicle may be understood as assuming that the electric vehicle is connected to a predetermined set of one or more phases of the polyphase power distribution system … If the connection configuration for an electric vehicle cannot be determined with certainty, then this connection configuration may be determined to be a default connection configuration.” – It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a predetermined default phase label, such as “Phase A”, to replace an unknown phase label because Verheijen teaches using a default connection configuration when the actual connection configuration cannot be determined with certainty.).
Verheijen does not explicitly teach the logic further causes the system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE and, in response to determining there are not generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE, generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image18.png
62
627
media_image18.png
Greyscale
.
However, Lee further teaches generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image18.png
62
627
media_image18.png
Greyscale
(Par. [0154], “Certain embodiments can calculate the line currents Ip3 from the phase currents
PNG
media_image3.png
106
119
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where each variable is a phasor … define the set of all EVSEs connected between lines a and b to be Sab, likewise for bc and ca …
PNG
media_image4.png
55
130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”; Par. [0155], “each EVSE as a constant current load with unity power factor, so the phase of each current matches the phase of the corresponding voltage”; Par. [0157], “From (13), the current constraint lIa3l ≤ R3,a becomes a constraints on Iabevse and Icaevse : lIa3l = lIabevse – Icaevsel ≤ R3,a”; Par. [0159], “These constraints translate into constraints on the charging rates ri-(t) through (14).” – Lee’s Sab, Sbc, Sca correspond to the claimed EVSE/node set Vk, ri(t) corresponds to the claimed charging rate ri(t), known EVSE phase-current phasor contribution corresponds to
PNG
media_image5.png
35
19
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and Lee’s current limit R3,a corresponds to Lk(t)).
Lee and Verheijen do not explicitly teach the logic further causes the system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE.
However, Kempton teaches the logic further causes the system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE (Par. [0051], “EVSE attributes may include static and dynamic attributes … The static attributes may include … forward flow limit; reverse flow limit; … The dynamic attributes may include vehicle capabilities, and vehicle authorizations.”; a reverse flow limit indicating the maximum allowable flow of power into EVSE 104 from EVE 102 of a grid-integrated vehicle Par. [0066], “The reverse flow limit may be set to zero to indicate that supply of power to EVSE 104 from grid-integrated vehicle with EVE 102 is not allowed”; Par. [0113], “defaults may include attributes to allow charging of vehicle, but not to allow back feeding or emergency power from the vehicle.” – Kempton’s reverse-flow limit, vehicle capabilities, and vehicle authorizations correspond to determining whether the EVSE has generator or bi-directional equipment available for bidirectional power flow.).
Therefore, in response to determining that generator or bidirectional equipment is not available, it would have been obvious to configure Lee’s adaptive EV charging optimization system, as modified by Verheijen, to perform Verheijen’s default phase assignment and apply Lee’s known-phase phasor constraint, because when bidirectional power flow is not available, the EVSE is treated as load-only equipment and a predetermined default phase label allows Lee’s known-phase constraint to be applied.
Lee, Verheijen, and Kempton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to electric vehicle charging systems and managing charging/power flow between EVSEs, electric vehicles, and the grid subject to infrastructure capacity and safety constraints.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above adaptive EV charging optimization system with default phase assignments for unknown phase configurations, as taught by Lee and Verheijen, and incorporate using EVSE attributes to determine whether reverse/bidirectional power flow through the EVSE is permitted or available, as taught by Kempton.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve efficiency and reliability in managing EV charging resources and grid services, as suggested by Kempton (Par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee, and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Verheijen further teaches determining whether the phase assignment is labeled or not labeled as unknown (Par. [0009], “if the connection configuration for a single-phase-charging electric vehicle is unknown, then, for safety reasons, it has to be assumed during the allocation of charging resources that the electric vehicle is connected to all phases”; Par. [0015], “If the connection configuration for an electric vehicle cannot be determined with certainty, then this connection configuration may be determined to be a default connection configuration.”; Fig. 4, Par. [0120] – [0121], “Because the connection configuration of electric vehicle at that point in time is unknown, each total amount of allocated charging resources for each phase contains said certain amount as indicated in the top left diagram. However, at some point in time, the connection configuration for electric vehicle may be determined to be that it is only connected to phase I. Then, for phases II and III, the total amount of allocated charging resources is reduced by said certain amount as shown in the top right diagram.” – Verheijen distinguishes between an unknown phase-assignment condition, for which conservative all-phase allocation is used, and a known, phase-I condition, for which phase-specific allocation is used. Selecting between these respective allocation procedures corresponds to determining whether the phase assignment is labeled as unknown or is not labeled as unknown.).
Verheijen does not explicitly teach generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image1.png
57
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
44
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
the method further comprises determining whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE and, in response to determining there are not generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE, generate the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image17.png
41
227
media_image17.png
Greyscale
.
However, Lee teaches generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image1.png
57
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
44
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Par. [0152], “Phase Constraints: A phase constraint pertains to the current along one leg of the delta, i.e. ab, bc, or ca”; Par. [0154], “Certain embodiments can calculate the line currents Ip3 from the phase currents
PNG
media_image3.png
106
119
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where each variable is a phasor … define the set of all EVSEs connected between lines a and b to be Sab, likewise for bc and ca …
PNG
media_image4.png
55
130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”; Par. [0155], “each EVSE as a constant current load with unity power factor, so the phase of each current matches the phase of the corresponding voltage”; Par. [0157], “From (13), the current constraint lIa3l ≤ R3,a becomes a constraints on Iabevse and Icaevse : lIa3l = lIabevse – Icaevsel ≤ R3,a”; Par. [0159], “These constraints translate into constraints on the charging rates ri(t) through (14)” – Lee teaches the same current-constraint structure using different notation. Lee’s Sab, Sbc, Sca correspond to the claimed EVSE/node set Vk, ri(t) corresponds to the claimed charging rate ri(t), known EVSE phase/line contribution of each EVSE current corresponds to the claimed
PNG
media_image5.png
35
19
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and line-current capacity limit R3,a corresponds to the claimed current/line limit Lk(t). Thus, Lee teaches summing EVSE charging-rate/current contributions according to known phase-line assignments and constraining the resulting phasor line current to be below a line-current capacity limit, which corresponds to generating the optimization problem according to the claimed constraint.), and
generate the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image17.png
41
227
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(Par. [0111], “if a set of 8 chargers are fed by a cable with capacity 80A, the corresponding capacity constraint is
PNG
media_image13.png
46
99
media_image13.png
Greyscale
… Sometimes Si may be used to denote the set of EVs that share resource I”; Par. [0113], “the capacity constraint on the subpanel is:
PNG
media_image16.png
50
100
media_image16.png
Greyscale
” – Lee’s set of EVs/chargers sharing a resource corresponds to the claimed Vk, Lee’s charging rate ri(t) corresponds to the claimed ri(t), and Lee’s resource/cable/subpanel capacity Pl(t)/P2 correspond to the claimed Lk(t).
Lee and Verheijen do not explicitly teach the method further comprises determining whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE.
However, Kempton teaches the method further comprises determining whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE (Par. [0051], “EVSE attributes may include static and dynamic attributes … The static attributes may include … forward flow limit; reverse flow limit; … The dynamic attributes may include vehicle capabilities, and vehicle authorizations.”; a reverse flow limit indicating the maximum allowable flow of power into EVSE 104 from EVE 102 of a grid-integrated vehicle Par. [0066], “The reverse flow limit may be set to zero to indicate that supply of power to EVSE 104 from grid-integrated vehicle with EVE 102 is not allowed”; Par. [0146], “EVE 102 determines if EVSE 104 authorized it for use in the event of grid power loss, and if it has capabilities to do so. In an exemplary embodiment, VL 103 determines whether an EVSE attribute has been received indicating that EVSE 104 is authorized to receive power (e.g., has been approved by an electrician as having proper equipment installed) in the event of grid power loss. If EVSE 104 is authorized, processing proceeds at step 812. Otherwise, VL 103 discontinues supplying/will not supply power from EVE 102 to EVSE 104.” – A zero reverse-flow limit, lack of authorization, or lack of required EVSE capability corresponds to determining that generator or bidirectional equipment/capability is not available for the EVSE. Therefore, in response to determining that generator or bidirectional equipment/capability is not available, it would have been obvious to use Lee’s non-reverse-flow charging-resource capacity constraint, because the EVSEs are treated as charging loads subject to resource capacity rather than as bidirectional power-flow resources.).
It would have been obvious to configure Lee’s method, as modified by Verheijen, to apply Lee’s known-phase phasor constraint when the phase assignment is not unknown and to apply Lee’s conservative summation constraint when the phase assignment is unknown and Kempton indicates no reverse-flow/generator/bidirectional capability, because known phase assignments permit Lee’s phasor current calculation, while unknown phase assignments are treated conservatively for safety as taught by Verheijen, and Kempton’s no-backfeeding/no-reverse-flow condition means the EVSE is treated as load-only equipment.
Lee, Verheijen, and Kempton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to electric vehicle charging systems and managing charging/power flow between EVSEs, electric vehicles, and the grid subject to infrastructure capacity and safety constraints.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above adaptive EV charging optimization system, as taught by Lee and Verheijen, and incorporate using EVSE attributes to determine whether reverse/bidirectional power flow through the EVSE is permitted or available, as taught by Kempton.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve efficiency and reliability in managing EV charging resources and grid services, as suggested by Kempton (Par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee, and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Verheijen further teaches in response to determining that the phase assignment is labeled as unknown (Par. [0009], “if the connection configuration for a single-phase-charging electric vehicle is unknown, then, for safety reasons, it has to be assumed during the allocation of charging resources that the electric vehicle is connected to all phases”; Par. [0120] – [0121], “FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment wherein first a certain amount of charging resources is allocated to electric vehicle C. Because the connection configuration of electric vehicle at that point in time is unknown, each total amount of allocated charging resources for each phase contains said certain amount as indicated in the top left diagram. However, at some point in time, the connection configuration for electric vehicle may be determined to be that it is only connected to phase I. Then, for phases II and III, the total amount of allocated charging resources is reduced by said certain amount as shown in the top right diagram.” – Verheijen determines whether the phase assignment is unknown because the system selects between an unknown configuration allocation procedure and a known-phase allocation procedure based on whether the phase connection has been determined.), and replace the phase assignment with an unknown label, replace the unknown phase label with phase A (Par. [0015], “determining a default connection configuration for an electric vehicle may be understood as assuming that the electric vehicle is connected to a predetermined set of one or more phases of the polyphase power distribution system … If the connection configuration for an electric vehicle cannot be determined with certainty, then this connection configuration may be determined to be a default connection configuration.” – It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a predetermined default phase label, such as “Phase A”, to replace an unknown phase label because Verheijen teaches using a default connection configuration when the actual connection configuration cannot be determined with certainty.).
Verheijen does not explicitly teach the logic further causes the system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE and, in response to determining there are not generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE, generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image18.png
62
627
media_image18.png
Greyscale
.
However, Lee further teaches generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image18.png
62
627
media_image18.png
Greyscale
(Par. [0154], “Certain embodiments can calculate the line currents Ip3 from the phase currents
PNG
media_image3.png
106
119
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where each variable is a phasor … define the set of all EVSEs connected between lines a and b to be Sab, likewise for bc and ca …
PNG
media_image4.png
55
130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”; Par. [0155], “each EVSE as a constant current load with unity power factor, so the phase of each current matches the phase of the corresponding voltage”; Par. [0157], “From (13), the current constraint lIa3l ≤ R3,a becomes a constraints on Iabevse and Icaevse : lIa3l = lIabevse – Icaevsel ≤ R3,a”; Par. [0159], “These constraints translate into constraints on the charging rates ri-(t) through (14).” – Lee’s Sab, Sbc, Sca correspond to the claimed EVSE/node set Vk, ri(t) corresponds to the claimed charging rate ri(t), known EVSE phase-current phasor contribution corresponds to
PNG
media_image5.png
35
19
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and Lee’s current limit R3,a corresponds to Lk(t)).
Lee and Verheijen do not explicitly teach the logic further causes the system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE.
However, Kempton teaches the logic further causes the system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE (Par. [0051], “EVSE attributes may include static and dynamic attributes … The static attributes may include … forward flow limit; reverse flow limit; … The dynamic attributes may include vehicle capabilities, and vehicle authorizations.”; a reverse flow limit indicating the maximum allowable flow of power into EVSE 104 from EVE 102 of a grid-integrated vehicle Par. [0066], “The reverse flow limit may be set to zero to indicate that supply of power to EVSE 104 from grid-integrated vehicle with EVE 102 is not allowed”; Par. [0113], “defaults may include attributes to allow charging of vehicle, but not to allow back feeding or emergency power from the vehicle.” – Kempton’s reverse-flow limit, vehicle capabilities, and vehicle authorizations correspond to determining whether the EVSE has generator or bi-directional equipment available for bidirectional power flow.).
Therefore, in response to determining that generator or bidirectional equipment is not available, it would have been obvious to configure Lee’s adaptive EV charging optimization system, as modified by Verheijen, to perform Verheijen’s default phase assignment and apply Lee’s known-phase phasor constraint, because when bidirectional power flow is not available, the EVSE is treated as load-only equipment and a predetermined default phase label allows Lee’s known-phase constraint to be applied.
Lee, Verheijen, and Kempton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to electric vehicle charging systems and managing charging/power flow between EVSEs, electric vehicles, and the grid subject to infrastructure capacity and safety constraints.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above adaptive EV charging optimization system with default phase assignments for unknown phase configurations, as taught by Lee and Verheijen, and incorporate using EVSE attributes to determine whether reverse/bidirectional power flow through the EVSE is permitted or available, as taught by Kempton.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve efficiency and reliability in managing EV charging resources and grid services, as suggested by Kempton (Par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lee and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Verheijen further teaches determining whether the phase assignment is labeled or not labeled as unknown (Par. [0009], “if the connection configuration for a single-phase-charging electric vehicle is unknown, then, for safety reasons, it has to be assumed during the allocation of charging resources that the electric vehicle is connected to all phases”; Par. [0015], “If the connection configuration for an electric vehicle cannot be determined with certainty, then this connection configuration may be determined to be a default connection configuration.”; Fig. 4, Par. [0120] – [0121], “Because the connection configuration of electric vehicle at that point in time is unknown, each total amount of allocated charging resources for each phase contains said certain amount as indicated in the top left diagram. However, at some point in time, the connection configuration for electric vehicle may be determined to be that it is only connected to phase I. Then, for phases II and III, the total amount of allocated charging resources is reduced by said certain amount as shown in the top right diagram.” – Verheijen distinguishes between an unknown phase-assignment condition, for which conservative all-phase allocation is used, and a known, phase-I condition, for which phase-specific allocation is used. Selecting between these respective allocation procedures corresponds to determining whether the phase assignment is labeled as unknown or is not labeled as unknown).
Verheijen does not explicitly teach generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image1.png
57
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
44
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
the logic further causes the processing system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE and, in response to determining there are not generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE, generate the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image17.png
41
227
media_image17.png
Greyscale
.
However, Lee teaches generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image1.png
57
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
44
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Par. [0152], “Phase Constraints: A phase constraint pertains to the current along one leg of the delta, i.e. ab, bc, or ca”; Par. [0154], “Certain embodiments can calculate the line currents Ip3 from the phase currents
PNG
media_image3.png
106
119
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where each variable is a phasor … define the set of all EVSEs connected between lines a and b to be Sab, likewise for bc and ca …
PNG
media_image4.png
55
130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”; Par. [0155], “each EVSE as a constant current load with unity power factor, so the phase of each current matches the phase of the corresponding voltage”; Par. [0157], “From (13), the current constraint lIa3l ≤ R3,a becomes a constraints on Iabevse and Icaevse : lIa3l = lIabevse – Icaevsel ≤ R3,a”; Par. [0159], “These constraints translate into constraints on the charging rates ri(t) through (14)” – Lee teaches the same current-constraint structure using different notation. Lee’s Sab, Sbc, Sca correspond to the claimed EVSE/node set Vk, ri(t) corresponds to the claimed charging rate ri(t), known EVSE phase/line contribution of each EVSE current corresponds to the claimed
PNG
media_image5.png
35
19
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and line-current capacity limit R3,a corresponds to the claimed current/line limit Lk(t). Thus, Lee teaches summing EVSE charging-rate/current contributions according to known phase-line assignments and constraining the resulting phasor line current to be below a line-current capacity limit, which corresponds to generating the optimization problem according to the claimed constraint.), and
generate the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image17.png
41
227
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(Par. [0111], “if a set of 8 chargers are fed by a cable with capacity 80A, the corresponding capacity constraint is
PNG
media_image13.png
46
99
media_image13.png
Greyscale
… Sometimes Si may be used to denote the set of EVs that share resource I”; Par. [0113], “the capacity constraint on the subpanel is:
PNG
media_image16.png
50
100
media_image16.png
Greyscale
” – Lee’s set of EVs/chargers sharing a resource corresponds to the claimed Vk, Lee’s charging rate ri(t) corresponds to the claimed ri(t), and Lee’s resource/cable/subpanel capacity Pl(t)/P2 correspond to the claimed Lk(t).
Lee and Verheijen do not explicitly teach the logic further causes the processing system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE.
However, Kempton teaches the logic further causes the processing system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE (Par. [0046], “Microcomputer 210 is configured and programmed to provide the following functionality: (1) two-way communication with EVSE 104; (2) processing EVSE attributes received from EVSE 104; (3) executing instruction stored in memory 212”; Par. [0051], “EVSE attributes may include static and dynamic attributes … The static attributes may include … forward flow limit; reverse flow limit; … The dynamic attributes may include vehicle capabilities, and vehicle authorizations.”; a reverse flow limit indicating the maximum allowable flow of power into EVSE 104 from EVE 102 of a grid-integrated vehicle Par. [0066], “The reverse flow limit may be set to zero to indicate that supply of power to EVSE 104 from grid-integrated vehicle with EVE 102 is not allowed”; Par. [0146], “EVE 102 determines if EVSE 104 authorized it for use in the event of grid power loss, and if it has capabilities to do so. In an exemplary embodiment, VL 103 determines whether an EVSE attribute has been received indicating that EVSE 104 is authorized to receive power (e.g., has been approved by an electrician as having proper equipment installed) in the event of grid power loss. If EVSE 104 is authorized, processing proceeds at step 812. Otherwise, VL 103 discontinues supplying/will not supply power from EVE 102 to EVSE 104.” – A zero reverse-flow limit, lack of authorization, or lack of required EVSE capability corresponds to determining that generator or bidirectional equipment/capability is not available for the EVSE. Therefore, in response to determining that generator or bidirectional equipment/capability is not available, it would have been obvious to use Lee’s non-reverse-flow charging-resource capacity constraint, because the EVSEs are treated as charging loads subject to resource capacity rather than as bidirectional power-flow resources.).
It would have been obvious to configure Lee’s non-transitory computer readable medium, as modified by Verheijen, to apply Lee’s known-phase phasor constraint when the phase assignment is not unknown and to apply Lee’s conservative summation constraint when the phase assignment is unknown and Kempton indicates no reverse-flow/generator/bidirectional capability, because known phase assignments permit Lee’s phasor current calculation, while unknown phase assignments are treated conservatively for safety as taught by Verheijen, and Kempton’s no-backfeeding/no-reverse-flow condition means the EVSE is treated as load-only equipment.
Lee, Verheijen, and Kempton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to electric vehicle charging systems and managing charging/power flow between EVSEs, electric vehicles, and the grid subject to infrastructure capacity and safety constraints.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above adaptive EV charging optimization system, as taught by Lee and Verheijen, and incorporate using EVSE attributes to determine whether reverse/bidirectional power flow through the EVSE is permitted or available, as taught by Kempton.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve efficiency and reliability in managing EV charging resources and grid services, as suggested by Kempton (Par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lee, and Verheijen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Verheijen further teaches in response to determining that the phase assignment is labeled as unknown (Par. [0009], “if the connection configuration for a single-phase-charging electric vehicle is unknown, then, for safety reasons, it has to be assumed during the allocation of charging resources that the electric vehicle is connected to all phases”; Par. [0120] – [0121], “FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment wherein first a certain amount of charging resources is allocated to electric vehicle C. Because the connection configuration of electric vehicle at that point in time is unknown, each total amount of allocated charging resources for each phase contains said certain amount as indicated in the top left diagram. However, at some point in time, the connection configuration for electric vehicle may be determined to be that it is only connected to phase I. Then, for phases II and III, the total amount of allocated charging resources is reduced by said certain amount as shown in the top right diagram.” – Verheijen determines whether the phase assignment is unknown because the system selects between an unknown configuration allocation procedure and a known-phase allocation procedure based on whether the phase connection has been determined.), and replace the phase assignment with an unknown label, replace the unknown phase label with phase A (Par. [0015], “determining a default connection configuration for an electric vehicle may be understood as assuming that the electric vehicle is connected to a predetermined set of one or more phases of the polyphase power distribution system … If the connection configuration for an electric vehicle cannot be determined with certainty, then this connection configuration may be determined to be a default connection configuration.” – It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a predetermined default phase label, such as “Phase A”, to replace an unknown phase label because Verheijen teaches using a default connection configuration when the actual connection configuration cannot be determined with certainty.).
Verheijen does not explicitly teach the logic further causes the processing system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE and, in response to determining there are not generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE, generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image18.png
62
627
media_image18.png
Greyscale
.
However, Lee further teaches generating the optimization problem according to
PNG
media_image18.png
62
627
media_image18.png
Greyscale
(Par. [0154], “Certain embodiments can calculate the line currents Ip3 from the phase currents
PNG
media_image3.png
106
119
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where each variable is a phasor … define the set of all EVSEs connected between lines a and b to be Sab, likewise for bc and ca …
PNG
media_image4.png
55
130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”; Par. [0155], “each EVSE as a constant current load with unity power factor, so the phase of each current matches the phase of the corresponding voltage”; Par. [0157], “From (13), the current constraint lIa3l ≤ R3,a becomes a constraints on Iabevse and Icaevse : lIa3l = lIabevse – Icaevsel ≤ R3,a”; Par. [0159], “These constraints translate into constraints on the charging rates ri-(t) through (14).” – Lee’s Sab, Sbc, Sca correspond to the claimed EVSE/node set Vk, ri(t) corresponds to the claimed charging rate ri(t), known EVSE phase-current phasor contribution corresponds to
PNG
media_image5.png
35
19
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and Lee’s current limit R3,a corresponds to Lk(t)).
Lee and Verheijen do not explicitly teach the logic further causes the processing system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE.
However, Kempton teaches the logic further causes the processing system to determine whether there are any generators or bi-directional equipment in the EVSE (Par. [0051], “EVSE attributes may include static and dynamic attributes … The static attributes may include … forward flow limit; reverse flow limit; … The dynamic attributes may include vehicle capabilities, and vehicle authorizations.”; a reverse flow limit indicating the maximum allowable flow of power into EVSE 104 from EVE 102 of a grid-integrated vehicle Par. [0066], “The reverse flow limit may be set to zero to indicate that supply of power to EVSE 104 from grid-integrated vehicle with EVE 102 is not allowed”; Par. [0113], “defaults may include attributes to allow charging of vehicle, but not to allow back feeding or emergency power from the vehicle.” – Kempton’s reverse-flow limit, vehicle capabilities, and vehicle authorizations correspond to determining whether the EVSE has generator or bi-directional equipment available for bidirectional power flow.).
Therefore, in response to determining that generator or bidirectional equipment is not available, it would have been obvious to configure Lee’s adaptive EV charging optimization processing system, as modified by Verheijen, to perform Verheijen’s default phase assignment and apply Lee’s known-phase phasor constraint, because when bidirectional power flow is not available, the EVSE is treated as load-only equipment and a predetermined default phase label allows Lee’s known-phase constraint to be applied.
Lee, Verheijen, and Kempton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to electric vehicle charging systems and managing charging/power flow between EVSEs, electric vehicles, and the grid subject to infrastructure capacity and safety constraints.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above adaptive EV charging optimization processing system with default phase assignments for unknown phase configurations, as taught by Lee and Verheijen, and incorporate using EVSE attributes to determine whether reverse/bidirectional power flow through the EVSE is permitted or available, as taught by Kempton.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve efficiency and reliability in managing EV charging resources and grid services, as suggested by Kempton (Par. [0039]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, and 16 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, and fix the 112(b) issues.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bridges et al. [USPGPUB 2013/0217409 A1] teaches a system that enables power flow management for electrical devices, such as electric vehicles.
Harris et al. [USPGPUB 2022/0176840 A1] teaches an electric vehicle (EV) charging system includes a plurality of electrical vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) units, a plurality of associated EV charging stations, electrical power distribution wires or cables for distributing electrical power from the plurality of EVSE units to the plurality of EV charging stations, and an EVSE communications bus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/PETER XU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/ZIAUL KARIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights