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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lewchuk (US 2023/0120740 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Lewchuk teaches a power distribution system comprising:
an electric grid (see Lewchuk fig 14-16 element 599);
an electric vehicle (EV) (see Lewchuk fig 14 element 543 fig 15 element 550, fig 16 element 560 and para 132-134);
a plurality of loads (see Lewchuk fig 14-16 element 506);
a control panel (see Lewchuk fig 15-16 element 503 and para 123, 132-133) connected to the electric grid and including a grid smart circuit breaker structured to connect and disconnect the electric grid from the loads (see Lewchuk fig 15-16 element 502 and para 123,133, 231), an EV smart circuit breaker structured to connect and disconnect the EV from the loads and/or the electric grid (see Lewchuk fig 15-16 element 504 and para 123), and load smart circuit breakers structured to connect and disconnect the loads from the electric grid and/or the EV (see Lewchuk fig 15-16 element 504 and para 123 and 133);
a bidirectional EV supply equipment (EVSE) (see Lewchuk fig 14 element 543, fig 15 element 549, fig 16 element 554, and para 3, 132-134) comprising:
an EVSE smart circuit breaker structured to connect or disconnect the EV based on a voltage signal and interrupt current flowing to the loads (see Lewchuk fig 14-16 element 504 and para 123 and 133), the EV and/or the electric grid in an event of fault (see Lewchuk para 112-114, 117-118), the voltage signal comprising one of a grid voltage or an EV voltage (see Lewchuk para 112-114, 117-118);
an EVSE backup control power structured to provide control power to the bidirectional EVSE when the electric grid is not available or power from the EV is not available (see Lewchuk fig 14 element 545, fig 23, and para 132, 231); and
a bidirectional EVSE communications controller structured to communicate with the EV and the control panel during selecting an operation mode, transitioning to a selected operation mode and performing the selected operation mode (see Lewchuk para 257, 310, 319, 325).
Regarding Claim 15, Lewchuk teaches a method of providing power to loads in a power distribution system including an electric grid (see Lewchuk fig 14-16 element 599), a control panel(see Lewchuk fig 15-16 element 503 and para 123, 132-133), an electric vehicle (EV) coupled to a smart inverter (see Lewchuk fig 14 element 543 fig 15 element 550, fig 16 element 560 and para 132-134), and loads (see Lewchuk fig 14-16 element 506), the method comprising:
providing a bidirectional EV supply equipment (EVSE) structured to be coupled to the EV via an EV connector and the loads via the control panel (see Lewchuk fig 14-15 elements 543, 550 and 560, and para 132-134), the bidirectional EVSE comprising an EVSE smart circuit breaker structured to connect or disconnect the EV based on a voltage signal and interrupt current flowing to the loads (see Lewchuk fig 14-16 element 504 and para 123 and 133), the EV and/or the electric grid in an event of fault (see Lewchuk para 112-114, 117-118), the voltage signal comprising one of a grid voltage or an EV voltage (see Lewchuk para 112-114, 117-118), an EVSE backup control power structured to provide control power to the bidirectional EVSE when the electric grid is not available or power from the EV is not available (see Lewchuk fig 14 element 545, fig 23, and para 132, 231); and a bidirectional EVSE communications controller structured to communicate with the EV and the control panel during selecting an operation mode, transition to a selected operation mode and perform the selected operation mode (see Lewchuk para 257, 310, 319, 325);
determining that an EV is connected to the bidirectional EVSE (see Lewchuk para 414, the system is able to attempt to communicate with an ev connected to the system through a J1772 module, thus it is able to detect if a vehicle is connected.);
determining that the electric grid is not available (see Lewchuk para 231, 309, 318, 378);
selecting an operation mode based on the determination that the electric grid is not available (see Lewchuk fig 23 and para 231, 318, 375);
transitioning to a selected operation mode (see Lewchuk para 229-231); and
performing the selected operation mode (see Lewchuk para 84-87, 229-231).
Regarding Claim 19, Lewchuk teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising:
monitoring EV voltage by the bidirectional EVSE or the control panel (see Lewchuk para 315 “In some embodiments, at step 4810, the system may determine whether the EV is sufficiently charged based on the current provided (e.g., integrated current over time), current-voltage characteristics”).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2021/0129689 A1), and further in view of Siu (US 2024/0083288 A1) and DeDona (US 2015/0097525 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakamura teaches a bidirectional electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) for use in a power distribution system including an electric grid, a control panel, an electric vehicle (EV), and loads, the bidirectional EVSE being structured to be coupled to the EV, the control panel, and the loads via the control panel (see Nakamura fig 2 elements PG, 70, 50, 11 and 40, and para 81-82), the bidirectional EVSE comprising:
a bidirectional EVSE communications controller structured to communicate with the EV and the control panel during selecting an operation mode, transitioning to a selected operation mode, and performing the selected operation mode (see Nakamura para 102-109, the communication equipment in the EV can communicate with a controller to switch between charging and suppling power.).
Nakamura is silent on teaching an EVSE smart circuit breaker structured to connect or disconnect the EV based on a voltage signal and interrupt current flowing to the loads, the EV and/or the electric grid in an event of fault, the voltage signal comprising one of a grid voltage or an EV voltage (although Nakamura teaches a relay in the EV to disconnect and connect power to the charger, see para 67-68); an EVSE backup control power structured to provide control power to the bidirectional EVSE when the electric grid is not available or power from the EV is not available.
However, Siu teaches an EVSE that includes a battery to power the equipment that controls the power to be drawn from an EV (see Siu para 0030)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nakamura to include the backup battery from Siu to allow the EVSE to have power after a power outage but before the EV has started to transfer power back to the EVSE. Otherwise, an EV might not be able to communicate with the EVSE to know that power is being requested.
The combination of Nakamura and Siu are silent on teaching an EVSE smart circuit breaker structured to connect or disconnect the EV based on a voltage signal and interrupt current flowing to the loads, the EV and/or the electric grid in an event of fault, the voltage signal comprising one of a grid voltage or an EV voltage.
However, DeDona teaches an EVSE system with a relay in the EVSE (see DeDona fig 2 element 2, 4 element 110 and para 18, 27) that will disconnect power when a fault is detected (se DeDona para 61-62, 67-69).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura and Siu to include the relay from DeDona to disconnect power from the connector, thus preventing damage or a risk of shock when disconnecting or connecting the connector. This is a feature found in many EVSE systems.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nakamura, Siu and DeDona teaches the bidirectional EVSE of claim 1, wherein the bidirectional EVSE is coupled to an onboard smart inverter disposed within the EV (see Nakamura para 0067).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2021/0129689 A1), and in view of Siu (US 2024/0083288 A1) and DeDona (US 2015/0097525 A1) and further in view of Blaser (US 2021/0237612 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nakamura, Siu and DeDona teaches the directional EVSE of claim 2, but are silent on the bidirectional EVSE supports vehicle-to-everything technology (V2X) including an AC (alternating current) V2X technology associated with the onboard smart inverter and a DC (direct current) V2X technology associated with the offboard smart inverter.
However, Blaser teaches a bidirectional EVSE with vehicle to building, grid or home (see Blaser para 16, The vehicle is able to deliver power to everything that has a connection to the vehicle), with AC and DC input and output (see Blaser fig 1 element 31, 34, and para 14-20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura, Siu and DeDona to include the ability for the system to receive power from either AC or DC power from an EV as some vehicle may not support AC exporting or DC exporting, or the current requested from the system.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nakamura, Siu, DeDona and Blaser teaches the bidirectional EVSE of claim 3, but Nakamura and Blaser are silent on the bidirectional EVSE communication controller is further structured to perform a pulse width modulation (PWM) handshaking procedure defined for the operation mode comprising at least a vehicle-to-home (V2H) mode and a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) mode.
However, DeDona teaches “The EVSE controller 112 may connect the pilot signal 120 to output values of +12V, -12V, or a PWM output depending on the charging status” (see DeDona para 24, 27 and 63). Furthermore, Siu teaches “The present solution can use an EV charger to execute a handshake process between the charger and an electric vehicle to establish a session for bidirectional power delivery between the charger and the electric vehicle.” (see Siu para 22, 64, 70).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura and Blaser to include the teachings from DeDona or Siu to teach the communication method of setting of a power delivery connection between the EV and EVSE.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Nakamura, Siu, DeDona and Blaser teaches the bidirectional EVSE of claim 4, but Nakamura, Siu and Blaser are silent on the bidirectional EVSE is further structured to provide a tripping mechanism by disabling PWM signal and opening EVSE contactors upon disabling the PWM signal so as to allow the smart inverter to stop operation.
However, DeDona teaches an EVSE that uses a PWM signal to determine a valid connection between the EVSE and EV, and then will open or close a contactor 110 based on the PWM signal (see DeDona para 26-27).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura, Siu and Blaser to include the use of the PWM signal to open or close a contactor to establish a power transfer connection between the EVSE and EV. This could prevent electrical arching or shock when unplugging and plugging in the vehicle, and to disconnect the vehicle when a fault is detected.
Claim(s) 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2021/0129689 A1), and in view of Siu (US 2024/0083288 A1) and DeDona (US 2015/0097525 A1) and further in view of Lewchuk (US 2023/0120740).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Nakamura, Siu and DeDona teaches the bidirectional EVSE of claim 2, but Nakamura, Siu and DeDona are silent on the bidirectional EVSE is structured to provide configurable oversight protections to the onboard or offboard smart inverter, the oversight protections including an overcurrent protection, overvoltage protection, undervoltage protection, over-frequency protection, and under-frequency protection, the adjustable oversight protections comprising adjustable settings for thresholds and tripping times and mechanisms for each operation mode.
However, Lewchuk teaches an EVSE with an offboard with over current (see Lewchuk para 153, 156, 256, 270, 282, 395), over voltage (see Lewchuk para 269, 298, 396), undervoltage protection (see Lewchuk para 268, 282, 298, 396), frequency protection (see Lewchuk para 268, 298), and be managed by the managing system (see Lewchuk para 412). The system can also disconnect a load for a period of time which can be adjusted in the software (see Lewchuk para 266).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura, Siu and DeDona to include the adjustable protection systems and the load shifting from Lewchuk to allow the system to be adjusted to the requirements of a location. Some installs may require more or less demanding voltage, current or frequency ranges. Load shifting can be useful to only run certain loads when electrical demand is lower and cheaper.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Nakamura, Siu and DeDona teaches the bidirectional EVSE of claim 1, but are silent on the bidirectional EVSE is further structured to support islanding during a loss of the grid voltage.
However, Lewchuk teaches a power management system that allows an EVSE to be used to support islanding of a power system during a power outage (see Lewchuk fig 23 and para 141, 181, 231)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura, Siu and DeDona to allow the bidirectional EVSE to supply power to a building during a power outage. EV batteries can store enough energy to power a home for several hours or days.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Nakamura, Siu and DeDona teaches the bidirectional EVSE of claim 2, wherein the bidirectional EVSE is further structured to provide bidirectional voltage awareness such that the bidirectional EVSE prevents the grid from connecting to the loads when the onboard or offboard smart inverter provides EV voltage to the loads in a grid forming mode, and the bidirectional EVSE prevents the onboard or offboard smart inverter from entering the grid forming mode when the grid provides the power to the loads.
However, Lewchuk teaches a home energy management system that can prioritize onsite power or grid power and switch between the power sources to be drawing power from the grid or in an island mode (see Lewchuk fig 23 and para 4, 9, 41, 141, 231, 332). The system can be supplied by energy stored in an EV by an onboard or offboard inverter (see Lewchuk fig 14-16 and para 132-134).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura, Siu and DeDona to include the teachings of Lewchuk to allow the system to switch between grid and battery power.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewchuk (US 2023/0120740) and in view of Blaser (US 2021/0237612 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Lewchuk teaches the system of claim 11, further comprising:
an onboard smart inverter disposed within the EV (see Lewchuk fig 15 element 550, fig 16 element 560 and para 133-134) or an offboard smart inverter disposed outside of the EV and within the bidirectional EVSE (see Lewchuk fig 16 element 554 and para 134),
But, Lewchuk is silent on the bidirectional EVSE supports vehicle-to-everything technology (V2X) including an AC (alternating current) V2X technology associated with the onboard smart inverter and a DC (direct current) V2X technology associated with the offboard smart inverter.
However, Blaser teaches a bidirectional EVSE with vehicle to building, grid or home (see Blaser para 16, The vehicle is able to deliver power to everything that has a connection to the vehicle), with AC and DC input and output (see Blaser fig 1 element 31, 34, and para 14-20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lewchuk to include the ability for the system to receive power from either AC or DC power from an EV as some vehicle may not support AC exporting or DC exporting, or the current requested from the system.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewchuk (US 2023/0120740) and in view of DeDona (US 2015/0097525 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Lewchuk teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the bidirectional EVSE is structured to provide a tripping mechanism during a protection event by disabling a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal and opening EVSE contactors upon disabling the PWM signal so as to allow the onboard smart inverter or the offboard smart inverter to stop operation.
However, DeDona teaches an EVSE that uses a PWM signal to determine a valid connection between the EVSE and EV, and then will open or close a contactor 110 based on the PWM signal (see DeDona para 26-27).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lewchuk to include the use of the PWM signal to open or close a contactor to establish a power transfer connection between the EVSE and EV. This could prevent electrical arching or shock when unplugging and plugging in the vehicle, and to disconnect the vehicle when a fault is detected.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewchuk (US 2023/0120740) and in view of Laskowsky (US 2024/0235204 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Lewchuk teaches the method of claim 15, but is silent on the bidirectional EVSE supports a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) technology and the operation mode including a vehicle-to-home mode (V2H) and a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) mode.
However, Laskowsky teaches a bidirectional EVSE with vehicle to building, grid or home (see Laskowsky para 2, 29, “The system 10 may be configured to deliver vehicle-to-grid (V2G), vehicle to an externally connected electrical load (vehicle-to-load, or V2L), vehicle-to-home (V2H), vehicle-to-anything (V2X)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lewchuk to include the teachings of Laskowsky to support a configuration of delivering power to the grid, load or home based on the circumstances. This would allow the vehicle’s battery to be used as a backup battery for a home or to sell power back to the grid when demand is high.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewchuk (US 2023/0120740) and in view of Laskowsky (US 2024/0235204 A1) and in further view of DeDona (US 2015/0097525 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Lewchuk and Laskowsky teaches the method of claim 16, but is silent on teaching performing a pulse width modulation (PWM) handshaking procedure designed for a selected operation mode.
However, DeDona teaches “The EVSE controller 112 may connect the pilot signal 120 to output values of +12V, -12V, or a PWM output depending on the charging status” (see DeDona para 24, 27 and 63).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lewchuk and Laskowsky to include the teachings from DeDona to teach the communication method of setting of a power delivery connection between the EV and EVSE.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of records are silent on teaching a pwm handshake procedure that contains different signals between a V2H and V2G mode. The need for the vehicle to be notified that whether the energy is flowing to a grid or just a home is not taught by the prior art. Although the prior art teaches that data can be communicated between the EVSE and EV and could contain that information..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA J SWEET whose telephone number is (571)272-6776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 4:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/JOSHUA JAMES SWEET/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights