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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendments:
The previous made drawing and specification objections are withdrawn;
The previous made Rule 105 request is withdrawn;
The previous made 112, second paragraph rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Pages 10-11 of the Office Action alleges that the user terminal 15 of Asakura fulfills this limitation of claim 3 as described in paragraphs [0062] and [0050] of Asakura. However, FIG. 2 of Asakura shows that user terminal 15 is integrated with terminal controller 18, third communication controller 43, resource aggregator 30, and control apparatus 35. In other words, Asakura fails to disclose a controller which is configured to "selectively receive and execute remote instructions from a user" (emphasis added) as claimed.
Applicant’s interpretation of the user terminal (15, FIGURE 2) as taught as “integrated” with the various other components shown is not accurate. Indeed the user terminal is communicatively coupled however the remote terminal is not taught as “integrated” as further taught in the Specification at [0047]:
[0047] Regarding a user terminal 15, It is enough that the user terminal is configured to be able to perform a bidirectional communication with a resource aggregator 30. The user terminal 15 might be, for example, a car navigation system mounted on the electric vehicle 10, or might be a smart phone, a tablet terminal, or a desktop type or laptop type of a personal computer used by a user.
Indeed, the remote terminal is envisioned as one of a smart phone, tablet, or laptop. All of which read on “remote instructions” as it relates the control circuitry shown in FIGURE 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 8, 9, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asakura et al. US 2023/0095670.
Asakura teaches:
3. A system for aggregation and exportation of power to the grid, comprising:
a controller (see FIGURE 2, excluding the claimed user terminal 15, as provided for below) configured to:
monitor a grid stability (read at least in part on Power Demand, FIGURE 3 and Spec. @ [0056, 0040-0041] emphasis on demand and balance of grid) of a grid and a cost of a unit of energy (see incentive controller [0014] and controller function wherein incentive is envisioned as cost [0071]);
monitor a status of a plurality of nodes within a fleet (read at least in part via STEP S1, FIG3 emphasis on “Obtain electric storage state information” and “obtain vehicle information”), wherein the fleet comprises a combination of mobile and stationary resources (mobile 10 and stationary 20, FIGURE1 noting that a vehicle itself reads on both mobile and stationary as a vehicle is mobile when operating but immobile when disabled or parked (ie when its wheels are off); and
selectively receive and execute remote instructions from a user (read on by at least user terminal 15, [0062] and/or for (noting intended use of said instruction only requiring the ability to use said information for said claimed intended purpose) transferring energy from at least one node of the plurality of nodes within the fleet to a grid (noting that said user input is actually used for transferring energy as claimed (see at least input from user 15 used by aggregator for performing power transfer, [0050]).
4. The system of claim 3, the controller further configured to manage and monitor an amount of energy provided to the grid(ie [0085-0086] see Step S30) and a value generation of the energy provided to the grid (see [0056] “It is preferable that the calculation is performed on the basis of the predictive value for the X-hours-later electric power demand and supply balance.”).
8. The system of claim 3, further comprising a communication system communicatively coupled with the controller and each node of the plurality of nodes within the fleet (see communication system of first, second and third communication controllers and corresponding communication coupling to each of nodes via 18, FIG2).
9. The system of claim 3, wherein the nodes include internal combustion generating units, hybrid combustion and electric units (10, [0045]), battery electric units (read on by at least 22, FIG1), or a combination thereof.
21. The system of claim 3, wherein each mobile resource and each stationary resource is remote from the remaining mobile and stationary resources of the fleet (ie. said vehicles 10 being individual and sperate vehicle (read remote) and said stationary spot 20 (See FIGURE 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura et al. US 2023/0095670 in view of McAlwee et al. US 2023/0356607.
Asakura fails to teach:
5. The system of claim 3, the system further comprising a bidirectional converter.
McAlwee teaches use of a bidirectional converters for use with system for power aggregation (see FIGURE 2 and [0043-0044] noting bidirectional converters 212 for use with V2G application).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the bidirectional converter taught by McAlwee into the system of Asakura with the motivation of providing a known and available converting means with flexible and desirable design to accommodate various system voltage levels and EV vehicle voltages.
Regarding Claim 7
Asakura in view of McAlwee further teaches:
7. The system of claim 5, wherein the bidirectional converter circuit (as taught by the combination above with McAlwee) is configured to facilitate charging of DC batteries (ie the EV battery of Asakura) of at least one node (ie said EV) of the plurality of nodes within the fleet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights