DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Amendment and Remarks filed on 5/13/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant's arguments filed “Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the subject application and are presently under consideration. Claims 1, 3-16, 18, and 19 have been amended as indicated at pages 2-6 of the Reply. No new matter has been introduced by the herein amendments.” on 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (A), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes the limitation of “a maximum active power that can be transferred from the EV to an electrical grid during a bidirectional power transfer (BPT) operation” is not disclosed in the specification and indicated new matter.
(B) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7, filed “Claim 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-9 of copending Application No. 18943567. Assignee's representative believes that the herein amendments to the subject claims make the subject claims patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 18943567, and thus render this rejection moot. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.” on 5/13/2026, with respect to Double Patenting Rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As to point (B), the Double Patenting Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19-20 has been withdrawn.
(C) Applicant's arguments filed “Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 16 recites a "computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium" which clearly falls within the statutory classes of subject matter. In this regard, the addition of the term "non-transitory" herein is to be understood to have removed only propagating transitory signals per se from claim scope and does not relinquish rights to all standard computer-readable media that are not only propagating transitory signals per se. In other words, the meaning of "non-transitory computer readable medium" should be construed to exclude only those types of transitory computer- readable media, which were found in In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) to fall outside the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As such, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested” on 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (C), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes the claim is directed to “a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer- readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions”. The claim is not directed to a non-transitory computer- readable medium but the computer program product which indicated software per se and therefore non-statutory. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer- readable medium storing a computer program product comprising machine-executable instructions” in order to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(D) Applicant's arguments filed “assignee's representative respectfully submits that Dow, Forbes, and Shin, alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest all elements as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 16 (and claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 that depend therefrom), and thus the rejection fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject claims. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.” on 5/13/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (D), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes Dow disclosed in Para 59 “A discharge schedule may be defined as a plan including discharging limits of an EV for a specific period of time. A discharge schedule may be an energy transfer schedule related to energy transferred from an EV to a power grid” and Para 63 “Discharging limits may be defined as physical constraints (e.g., voltage, current, energy, and power) negotiated for a discharging session during a V2G communication session” which would fully encompass the amended limitations.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/8/2026, 3/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended claims 1, 9, and 16 recited the limitation of “a maximum active power that can be transferred from the EV to an electrical grid during a bidirectional power transfer (BPT) operation” which was not described in the specification. The amendment therefor is directed to new matters.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-20 are rejected because the claims depended on claim 1, 9, and 16 which is rejected base on the reason above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claims 16-20 recites “A computer program product” wherein the claimed system is software per se, as it is not tangibly embodied on any sort of physical medium or hardware. Accordingly, the claimed system is software per se and therefore non-statutory.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DOW (US20220097552A1).
Regarding claim 1, DOW teaches A system, located on an electric vehicle (EV), comprising:
at least one processor(DOW: Para 96 “The EVCC 150 may be configured to include a memory, a processor, and a communicator”); and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon(DOW: Para 96 “The EVCC 150 may be configured to include a memory, a processor, and a communicator”), wherein, in response to the at least one processor executing the instructions, the instructions facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
receiving, in a communication, a parameter comprising a discharge power limit defining, in accordance with a grid code implemented at an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) (DOW: Fig. 5 Element 514; Para 8 “an electric vehicle communication controller configured to communicate with the supply equipment communication controller and transmit the discharge schedule to the supply equipment communication controller”; Para 167 “in operation 514, after checking the battery status, a process of setting up a charge or discharge schedule is performed”; Para 168 “The charge schedule setup may be a target setting related to charging. The target setting related to the charging may be to set a time related to a charge process, the amount of energy charge, a charging method, etc. The charging method setting may be to select a quick charging method and/or the cheapest charging method”; Para 169 “The discharge schedule setup may be a target setting related to discharging. The target setting related to the discharging may be to set a time related to a discharge process, the amount of energy discharge, a discharging method, etc.”), a maximum active power that can be transferred from the EV to an electrical grid during a bidirectional power transfer (BPT) operation(DOW: Para 59 “A discharge schedule may be defined as a plan including discharging limits of an EV for a specific period of time. A discharge schedule may be an energy transfer schedule related to energy transferred from an EV to a power grid”; Para 63 “Discharging limits may be defined as physical constraints (e.g., voltage, current, energy, and power) negotiated for a discharging session during a V2G communication session”); and
adjusting the BPT operation of the EV in accordance with the parameter, wherein the BPT operation comprises a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) operation configured to discharge electrical energy from a battery located onboard the EV to the electrical grid such that a value defined by the discharge power limit is not exceeded during the V2G operation(DOW: Fig. 5 Element 516 and 518B; Para 177 “in operation 517, when the discharging preparation process is successfully completed, discharging is started in which discharge energy is transferred from the OBC 120 of the EV 100 to the off-board charger 210 in the EVSE 200, and a process in which the HMI 320 of the power grid operation server 300 displays the discharging progress is performed”; Para 178 “Subsequently, a discharge stop process is performed by user intervention discharging is in progress in operation 518A, or a discharge finish process is performed by a discharge schedule in operation 518B”).
Regarding claim 2, DOW teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the communication is a digital signal(DOW: Fig. 5 Element 514; Para 8 “an electric vehicle communication controller configured to communicate with the supply equipment communication controller and transmit the discharge schedule to the supply equipment communication controller”; Para 167 “in operation 514, after checking the battery status, a process of setting up a charge or discharge schedule is performed”; Para 168 “The charge schedule setup may be a target setting related to charging. The target setting related to the charging may be to set a time related to a charge process, the amount of energy charge, a charging method, etc. The charging method setting may be to select a quick charging method and/or the cheapest charging method”; Para 169 “The discharge schedule setup may be a target setting related to discharging. The target setting related to the discharging may be to set a time related to a discharge process, the amount of energy discharge, a discharging method, etc.” i.e. communication between controllers would indicate digital signal).
Regarding claim 3, DOW teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the parameter is received via the EVSE connected to the EV (DOW: Fig. 5 Element 514; Para 107 “The HMI 220 has an interfacing function for displaying the commands and/or information related to the charging or discharge process and inputting the commands and/or information to the off-board charger 210 or the SECC 230 of the EVSE 200”)or received via a remotely located cloud server system, wherein the EVSE is configured to be in compliance with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61851 (DOW: Para 114 “The SECC 230 may be configured to include a memory, a processor, and a communicator”; Para 115 “The memory may be a volatile or non-volatile storage medium for storing messages related to the charging or discharge process on the basis of a communication protocol (communication standard) agreed with the EVCC 150”; i.e. communication protocol would encompass International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61851 ).
Regarding claim 5, DOW teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the EV is treated as a generator unit independent to the EVSE(DOW: Para 104 “From the standpoint of the EV, discharging is transferring energy to an off-board charger and thus indicates electricity generation. Gen included in a message symbol shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is an abbreviation of “generation.””; Para 177 “in operation 517, when the discharging preparation process is successfully completed, discharging is started in which discharge energy is transferred from the OBC 120 of the EV 100 to the off-board charger 210 in the EVSE 200, and a process in which the HMI 320 of the power grid operation server 300 displays the discharging progress is performed”).
Regarding claim 6, DOW teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the parameter is received from a distribution system operator (DSO) controlling operation of the electrical grid connected to the EVSE(DOW: Fig. 1 Element 300; Para 77 “the V2G system 500 includes an electric vehicle (EV) 100, an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) 200, and a power grid operation server 300”; Para 124 “The power grid operation server 300 may provide information required by the EVCC 150 or the SECC 230 to set up the charge or discharge schedule to the EVCC 150 or the SECC 230”; Para 133 “the power grid operation server 300 may provide a proposal for the charge or discharge schedule to the SECC 230 on the basis of the grid profile”).
Regarding claim 8, DOW teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the communication is in compliance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15118-2, ISO 15118-20, or a specification defining communication between the EV and the EVSE (DOW: Para 114 “The SECC 230 may be configured to include a memory, a processor, and a communicator”; Para 115 “The memory may be a volatile or non-volatile storage medium for storing messages related to the charging or discharge process on the basis of a communication protocol (communication standard) agreed with the EVCC 150”; i.e. communication protocol would encompass specification defining communication between the EV and an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE)).
As per claim 9, it recites A computer-implemented method having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 10, it recites A computer-implemented method having limitations similar to those of claim 3 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 11, it recites A computer-implemented method having limitations similar to those of claim 3 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 13, it recites A computer-implemented method having limitations similar to those of claim 8 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 14, it recites A computer-implemented method having limitations similar to those of claim 5 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 15, it recites A computer-implemented method having limitations similar to those of claim 6 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 16, it recites A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions having limitations similar to those of claims 1, 3, and 5 and therefore is rejected on the same basis. DOW further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions(DOW: Para 96 “The EVCC 150 may be configured to include a memory, a processor, and a communicator”).
As per claim 17, it recites A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions having limitations similar to those of claims 2 and 6 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 19, it recites A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions having limitations similar to those of claim 8 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
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 4, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOW (US20220097552A1) in view of Forbes (US20140018969A1).
In regards to claim 4, DOW teaches The system of claim 3.
Yet DOW do not explicitly teach wherein the grid code is in compliance with Commonwealth Standards Network specification EN 50549.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Forbes teaches wherein the grid code is in compliance with Commonwealth Standards Network specification EN 50549(Forbes: Para 76 “actively managing power supply from any electric power generation source or storage device for introduction to an electric power grid, and/or load curtailment for consideration as supply. Preferably, these systems and methods are in compliance with the standards that are currently contemplated and are changing in response to the recognized need in the United States and other countries where the electric utility grid is not fully developed, but the demand for energy is expected to grow substantially over the life of the invention”; Para 93 “managing flow of power for an electric grid, micro grid, or other system, or combinations thereof, more particularly the supply of electric power for the grid, whether by generation, storage for discharge, electric vehicles (EV), which function as transportable storage and load consuming devices, either standalone or in aggregate, (and must be tracked to ensure proper settlement and grid stability management), and/or load curtailment, and function to ensure grid stability and to supply electric power from any source of power generation, storage, and/or curtailment that equates to supply”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The system of DOW with the feature of wherein the grid code is in compliance with Commonwealth Standards Network specification EN 50549 disclosed by Forbes. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “actively controlling power load management for customers attached to the electric grid, and for creating operating reserves for utilities and market participants” (Forbes: Para 27).
As per claim 12, it recites A computer-implemented method having limitations similar to those of claim 4 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 18, it recites A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions having limitations similar to those of claims 4 and 5 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 7, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOW (US20220097552A1) further in view of Shin (US20230311700A1).
In regards to claim 7, DOW teaches The system of claim 1.
Yet DOW do not explicitly teach wherein the battery is configured to provide electrical power to a motor located on the EV, and the motor is configured to propel the EV.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shin teaches wherein the battery is configured to provide electrical power to a motor located on the EV, and the motor is configured to propel the EV (Shin: Para 58 ““Electric Vehicle (EV)”: An automobile, as defined in 49 CFR 523.3, intended for highway use, powered by an electric motor that draws current from an on-vehicle energy storage device, such as a battery, which is rechargeable from an off-vehicle source, such as residential or public electric service or an on-vehicle fuel powered generator”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The system of DOW with the feature of wherein the battery is configured to provide electrical power to a motor located on the EV, and the motor is configured to propel the EV disclosed by Shin. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “allow a power transfer to be performed according to a changed target power transfer amount” (Shin: Para 17).
As per claim 20, it recites A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions having limitations similar to those of claim 7 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun (US20220302701A1) disclosed a method for load distribution includes: establishing an interface with a controlling architecture or other management entity (e.g., site host of a set of chargers) of an electric power distribution system, the electric power distribution system in communication with a set of outlets of utility-facing devices providing access to the electric power distribution system Silo; returning a demand assessment from a demand model characterizing anticipated demand upon the one or more portions of the electric power distribution associated with the set of outlets S120; and executing an action for adjustment of load distribution through the controlling architecture or other management entity, based upon the demand assessment S130.
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 WENYUAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/13/26
Prosecution Insights