DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 11/11/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 (IDS) submitted on 3/10/2025, 4/14/2025, 11/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
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 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Table has been created below to compare claims 1-3, 5-8 of the instant application and claims 1-9 of the 18943567 application side by side.
Instant Application 18943599
Copending Application 18943567
1. 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:
receiving, in a communication, a parameter, wherein the parameter comprises one of a setpoint or a limit; and
adjusting operation of the EV in accordance with the parameter, wherein the operation is a bidirectional power transfer (BPT) operation.
1. 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:
receiving, in a communication, a control signal, wherein the control signal is received from a system remotely located from the EV and comprises a control setting; and
implementing the control setting at the EV to control a bidirectional power transfer (BPT) operation performed at the EV.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the communication is a digital signal.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the control signal is a digital signal.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the parameter is received via an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) connected to the EV or received via a remotely located cloud server system,
wherein the EVSE is configured to be in compliance with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61851.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the control signal is received via hardware configured to connect the EV with an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE).
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the hardware is configured per a specification in accordance with one of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61851, IEC 61851-1, or a specification defining compliance of hardware implemented to connect the EV to the EVSE.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the BPT operation is a vehicle to grid operation configured to discharge electrical energy from a battery located onboard the EV to an electrical grid connected to the EVSE,
wherein the parameter being in the form of a limit defines a value or level that cannot be exceeded during the BPT operation, and the parameter being in the form of a setpoint defines a particular value to be complied with during the BPT operation.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the BPT operation is a vehicle to grid (V2G) operation configured to transfer electrical energy from a battery located onboard the EV to an electrical grid connected to the EV.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the control signal comprises an instruction to perform at least one of reduce the BPT operation to a defined discharge rate, reduce the BPT operation to a discharge rate of zero kiloWatts-hour (0kWh), initiate the BPT operation, or adjust the BPT operation.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the parameter is received from a distribution system operator (DSO) controlling operation of the electrical grid connected to the EVSE.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the remotely located system is one of an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) connected to the EV, a system operated by a distribution system operator controlling operation of an electrical grid configured to receive energy discharged from a battery located onboard the EV, or a cloud-based system.
7. The system of claim 5, 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.
9. The system of claim 8, 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.
8. 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 an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE).
2. 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 an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE).
As illustrated in the table above, claims 1-3, 5-8 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of 18943567 application. All matching elements of the claim limitations appear in bold while non-matching elements of the claim laminations are not bolded.
As per claim 9-11, 13-15, it recites A computer-implemented method having limitations similar to those of claim 1-3, 5-8 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 16-17, 19-20, 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 1-3, 5-8 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed to A system, located on an electric vehicle (EV). Both inventions complete their function using the equivalent components such processor and memory. Lastly, both inventions adjusting operation of the EV.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 8-11 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, wherein the parameter comprises one of a setpoint or a limit(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.”); and
adjusting operation of the EV in accordance with the parameter, wherein the operation is a bidirectional power transfer (BPT) 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 an electric vehicle supply equipment (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 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 an electric vehicle supply equipment (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.
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 4-6, 12-19 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, wherein the parameter is in compliance with a grid code implemented at the EVSE(DOW: Para 3 “V2G is an abbreviation of “vehicle to grid,” which is a term that means that an electric vehicle and a power grid are connected. Standards related to V2G technology do not define specific communication interfaces”; Para 55 “Charging limits may be defined as physical constraints (e.g., voltage, current, energy, and power) negotiated for a charging session during a V2G communication session” 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”).
Yet DOW do not explicitly teach the grid code is in compliance with Commonwealth Standards Network specification EN 50549.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Forbes teaches 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 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).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of DOW and Forbes teaches The system of claim 4, and DOW further teaches wherein the BPT operation is a vehicle to grid operation configured to discharge electrical energy from a battery located onboard the EV to an electrical grid connected to the EVSE(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”), wherein the parameter being in the form of a limit defines a value or level that cannot be exceeded during the 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 the parameter being in the form of a setpoint defines a particular value to be complied with during the BPT operation(DOW: Fig. 5 Element 514; 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.”)..
In regards to claim 6, the combination of DOW and Forbes teaches The system of claim 5, and DOW further teaches 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”).
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 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 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.
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 7, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOW (US20220097552A1) and Forbes (US20140018969A1) further in view of Shin (US20230311700A1).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of DOW and Forbes teaches The system of claim 5.
Yet the combination of DOW and Forbes 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 the combination of DOW and Forbes 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
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
/ANSHUL SOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667