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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on March 10, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, the words “in response to receipt to a …” should be rewritten as “in response to receipt of a …”.
The foregoing changes are required to correct clerical and/or grammatical errors.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Do (CN 117227550 A).
Regarding claim 1, Keeling teaches a system, located on an electric vehicle (EV), comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein, in response to the at least one processor executing the instructions, the instructions facilitate performance of operations, comprising: (see Do at the Abstract, for example, which discloses that the invention relates to a method and an apparatus for charging/discharging an electric vehicle and a method for charging/discharging an electric vehicle comprises: receiving information of one or more grid codes and charge/discharge rate policies corresponding to each of the one or more grid codes; determining a charge/discharge schedule based on the received charge/discharge rate policy; and performing charging/discharging for the electric vehicle with the charging station based on the determined charging/discharging schedule; see Do at pages 2-3 which discloses that the present disclosure relates to a charge/discharge technology for an electric vehicle, and in particular to a charge/discharge control technology for power system protection and cost-effective charge/discharge in a vehicle-to-power grid (V2G) system; see Do at page 5 which discloses that there is provided a machine readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system comprising a processor, assist in performing operations comprising: receiving the power grid code and information about the charge/discharge rate policy corresponding to each of the power grid codes; determining a charge/discharge schedule based on the charge/discharge rate policy; and performing charging/discharging with the charging station based on the determined charging/discharging schedule.)
receiving a communication comprising a grid code, wherein the grid code is received from an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) configured to perform a bidirectional power transfer (BPT) operation with the EV, and the grid code is further configured for implementation based on the location of the EVSE; and implementing the grid code at the EV to facilitate the BPT operation between the EV and the EVSE (see Do at page 5 which discloses that electric vehicle charging controller is configured to: receiving information about charge/discharge rate policies corresponding to a plurality of grid codes through a vehicle communication terminal; see Do at page 6 which discloses that the electric vehicle may also include a positioning system for measuring a current position of the electric vehicle, and the electric vehicle charge controller is configured to: sending the position information based on the current position determined by the positioning system to the server by the network; and receiving information from the server regarding a charge/discharge rate policy corresponding to the plurality of grid codes mapped to the location information; Examiner notes that the electric vehicle position used to determine the plurality of grid codes mapped to the location information corresponds to the charge/discharge rate policy. Also, see Do at page 6 which discloses that the electric vehicle charging controller is configured to: predicting the available charge/discharge time period as the predicted available charge/discharge time period; selecting a power grid for charging or discharging as the selected power grid based on the charge/discharge rate policy and the predicted available charge/discharge time period; and generating a charge/discharge schedule by determining a charge/discharge time period based on a charge/discharge rate policy corresponding to the selected power grid; see Do at page 9 which discloses that the radio power transmission system 100 may consist essentially of a supply device 10 and a power drive device 20 and that the supply device 10 may transmit the converted AC power to the power drive device 20 through a predetermined wireless energy transmission scheme; see Do at page 12 which discloses that smart grid is a next-generation grid that combines information technology (IT) with the grid to create new added value, as power providers and consumers exchange information in real time and energy efficiency is optimized and that therefore, reasonable energy consumption can be induced by bidirectional power information exchange, and high quality energy and various additional services can be provided. Examiner maps supply device to the EVSE. Thus, Do teaches a grid code configured for implementation based on location of the EVSE and further configured to perform a bidirectional power transfer operation between the EV and EVSE.)
Regarding claim 2, Do teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the grid code is configured to be in compliance with EN50549-1 or a local grid code specification (see Do at page 6 which discloses receiving information from the server regarding a charge/discharge rate policy corresponding to the plurality of grid codes mapped to the location information. Examiner maps a rate policy to a local grid code specification.)
Regarding claim 3, Do teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the grid code includes at least one parameter, wherein the at least one parameter is required by the EV to perform the BPT operation with the EVSE (see Do at page 4 which discloses that in particular, it is important to efficiently control the charge/discharge of the electric vehicle for cost-effective management and to ensure the safety of the electric vehicle, taking into account the regional differences in system parameters and rate policies; see Do at page 4 which discloses that method may also include receiving a system parameter corresponding to an area code corresponding to the measured current location as the received system parameter; and correcting the received system parameter based on the measurement result of the power signal received from the charging station. Examiner notes that an area code, for example, may be mapped to the at least one parameter and that this parameter is required as it must be adjusted or corrected based on a power signal received from the charging station.)
Regarding claim 4, Do teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the at least one parameter comprises: an “Overvoltage 10 min mean protection” parameter setting, an “anti-islanding disengage time” parameter, or other parameter configured to prevent damage to equipment located at at least one of the EV, the EVSE, or the electrical grid (see Do at page 14 which discloses that the electric vehicle 250 may determine and set various power control parameters for charging or discharging based on the received system parameters, and may determine and set a charging/discharging schedule based on a charging/discharging rate policy. In this regard, the system parameters may include at least one of an active power value, a reactive power value, an active current/voltage value, a reactive current/voltage value, and the like, parameters related to the operating frequency, system fault information, and various legal matters, however, the disclosure may not be limited thereto and that based on the design of those skilled in the art, other system parameters may be added or some system parameters may be omitted. Examiner maps system fault information to other parameter configured to prevent damage to equipment. Examiner notes that system fault information can be used to correct a fault that could potentially result in damage to equipment.)
Regarding claim 7, Do teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the communication is configured per a specification in accordance with one of International Organization of Standardization (ISO) 15118-2, ISO 15118-20, or a specification defining communication between the EV and the EVSE (see Do at page 3 which discloses that plug and charging is the first technical concept proposed in ISO 15118, which is an international standard for charging electric vehicles and that the forward-looking concepts of the corresponding standards may enable the user to more conveniently and safely charge EV and may be used at any point of charge that fully supports the corresponding standards; see Do at page 17 which discloses that the electric vehicle charge controller 340 may control communication and overall operation with the electric vehicle 250 for wireless charging/discharging and that in an embodiment, the electric vehicle charge controller 340 may provide an ISO/IEC 15118 vehicle-to-grid communication interface (V2GCI) to perform authentication and security procedures for the electric vehicle 250.)
Regarding claim 8, Do teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the communication comprises a function controlling operation of the EV in response to receipt to a digital signal pertaining to the grid code, wherein the operation comprises one of: cease active power discharge between the EV and the EVSE, initiate power discharge between the EV and the EVSE, or adjust power discharge between the EV and the EVSE (see Do at the Abstract and at page 4 which discloses that in a general aspect, there is provided a method for charging/discharging an electric vehicle, the method comprising: receiving one or more power grid codes and information regarding a charge/discharge rate policy corresponding to each of the one or more power grid codes as the received charge/discharge rate policy; determining a charge/discharge schedule as the determined charge/discharge schedule based on the received charge/discharge rate policy; and performing charging/discharging for the electric vehicle based on the determined charging/discharging schedule and charging station. Examiner notes that determining a charge/discharge schedule corresponds to ceasing active power discharge or initiating power discharge between the EV and the EVSE since the charge/discharge schedule determines when to stop or cease charging between the EV and the EVSE, for example.)
Claims 9-12 and 15-16 are directed toward a method that performs the steps recited in the systems of claims 1-4 and 7-8. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejections of claims 1-4 and 7-8 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the methods of claims 9-12 and 15-16. Therefore, claims 9-12 and 15-16 are rejected for the same reasons as stated for claims 1-4 and 7-8 above.
Claim 17 is directed toward a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions, wherein, in response to being executed, the machine-executable instructions cause a system located on an electric vehicle (EV) to perform operations in the method steps recited in claim 1. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the steps recited in the computer program product of claim 17. Therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 20 is directed toward a computer program product that causes a system located on an electric vehicle (EV) to perform operations in the method steps recited in claims 7-8. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 7-8 teach the steps recited in the computer program product of claim 20. Therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 7-8.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 5, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do (CN 117227550 A) in view of Hafix et al. (EP 4283812 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Do does not expressly disclose the system of claim 3, wherein the at least one parameter is added to a distributed energy resource (DER) function bitmap, wherein the DER function bitmap comprises a list of at least one of a specification parameter or grid code, wherein the DER function bitmap is utilized by the EV during BPT operation, and the at least one parameter comprises: an “Overvoltage 10min mean protection” parameter added to the DER function bitmap, a “P-monitoring” function added to the DER function bitmap, or a function added to the DER function bitmap to enable BPT operation of the EV which in a related art Hafix teaches (Examiner notes that in light of what the specification specifies, the specification at [0011] states that the DER function bitmap comprises a list of at least one of a specification parameter or grid code. Hence, see Hafix at [0052] which discloses that in subprocess 420, process 400 determines whether or not the result of the load flow analysis, applied in subprocess 415, comprises or indicates any violations, that for example, an over-voltage violation may occur when the voltage in the steady state of a node exceeds a predefined threshold, that similarly, an under-voltage violation may occur when the voltage in the steady state of a node is less than a predefined threshold, that violations of other parameters, such as current, may be detected in a similar manner (e.g., using predefined thresholds), that these predefined threshold(s) may be defined by a grid code, such as the IEEE 1547 standard for interconnection and interoperability of distributed energy resources with associated electric power systems and that the IEEE 1547 defines an operating region for continuous voltage operation for its Abnormal Operating Performance Category Ill as having a lower bound of 0.88 per unit and an upper bound of 1.1 per unit. Examiner notes that an operating region for continuous voltage operation with specified lower and upper bounds corresponds to at least one parameter of a distributed energy resource (DER) bitmap in which the parameter comprises a function to enable BPT operation of the EV. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Do to include wherein the at least one parameter is added to a distributed energy resource (DER) function bitmap, wherein the DER function bitmap comprises a list of at least one of a specification parameter or grid code, wherein the DER function bitmap is utilized by the EV during BPT operation, and the at least one parameter comprises: an “Overvoltage 10min mean protection” parameter added to the DER function bitmap, a “P-monitoring” function added to the DER function bitmap, or a function added to the DER function bitmap to enable BPT operation of the EV, as taught by Hafix.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to determine whether or not a result of a load flow analysis has any violations, as suggested by Hafix at [0052].
Claim 13 is directed toward a computer-implemented method that performs the steps recited in the system of claim 5. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 5 teaches the steps recited in the method of claim 13. Therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 19 is directed toward a computer program product that performs operations corresponding to the steps recited in the system of claim 5. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 5 teaches the steps recited in the computer program product of claim 19. Therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do (CN 117227550 A) in view of Brissette et al. (EP 22201147 A).
Regarding claim 6, Do does not expressly disclose the system of claim 3, wherein the at least one parameter facilitates selection, at the EV, of an anti-islanding detection method which in a related art Brissette teaches (see Brissete at [0007] which discloses that a method is disclosed for detecting unintentional islanding (UI) of a distributed energy resource (DER) circuit, the method comprising using at least one hardware processor to: monitor transmissions from a plurality of UI detection sources to identify indications of unintentional islanding from the plurality of UI detection sources; and perform detection of unintentional islanding of the DER circuit by, while indications of unintentional islanding are identified during a time window from fewer than a consensus number of the plurality of UI detection sources, determining that unintentional islanding is not detected, wherein the consensus number is greater than one, and, when indications of unintentional islanding are identified during the time window from the consensus number of the plurality of UI detection sources, determining that unintentional islanding is detected; see Brissette at [0029] which discloses that each UI detection source 170 may comprise a device designed to continually or continuously measure one or more parameters at a position within an electrical circuit and that each UI detection source 170 may utilize the same UI detection method or may utilize a different UI detection method than one or more other UI detection sources 170 and that a UI detection source 170 may be any device capable of measuring and outputting the value of a parameter, including a microgrid controller, relay, distributed energy resource 150, and/or the like, as well as a device dedicated to detecting unintentional islands.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Do to include wherein the at least one parameter facilitates selection, at the EV, of an anti-islanding detection method, as taught by Brissette.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to detect unintentional islanding of a DER circuit, as suggested by Brissette at [0007].
Claim 14 is directed toward a computer-implemented method that performs the steps recited in the system of claim 6. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 6 teaches the steps recited in the method of claim 13. Therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 18 is directed toward a computer program product that performs operations corresponding to the steps recited in the systems of claims 3-4 and 6. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 3-4 and 6 teach the steps recited in the computer program product of claim 18. Therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claims 3-4 and 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664