CTNF 19/051,438 CTNF 96359 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2025 was filed before the mailing of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for Foreign Priority to JP-2024-062361, originally filed on 04/08/2024. The certified copy has been entered on 03/24/2025. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “update, after charging/discharging by the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected, updates the discharge execution list by adding an execution result of test charge/discharge by the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected” ( emphasis added) at the end of the claim. The duplicate recitation of “update[s]” is considered a typographical error, i.e. the claim reads as if stating “update, after charging/discharging by the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected, the discharge execution list by adding an execution result of test charge/discharge by the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected.” Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claim 1 recites a “VPP,” which is known in the art as an abbreviation for “virtual power plant,” e.g. analogous to how CPU is a known abbreviation for central processing unit. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. 07-34-01 Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites “ wherein the processor is configured to, when an electric vehicle for charging a power to a discharged charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected cannot be selected , charge a power to a stationary battery disposed in a same system as a power receiving end to which the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is connected.” ( Emphasis added). Depended upon Claim 1 recites “ a processor configured to select a charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected from among a plurality of chargers and dischargers based on [certain lists].” It is unclear as to the scope of dependent Claim 3 . First, it is unclear as to whether the condition “cannot be selected” of Claim 3 is referencing the selection made in Claim 1 (i.e. “select a charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected”). On one hand, the limitation of Claim 1 seems to indicate that the selected charger/discharger is the charger/discharger that is “to be maintained and inspected,” which is referenced in Claim 3. However, if the charger/discharger “to be maintained and inspected” is defined by the selection in Claim 1 , how could the condition of “cannot be selected” exist? On the other, the limitation of Claim 3 indicates that the conditions is for “when an electric vehicle,” i.e. not a charger/discharger, “cannot be selected.” However, the relationship between that “electric vehicle” and the selected “charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected” of Claim 1 becomes unclear. Because the scope of this limitation is unclear, Claim 3 is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 3 recites “ wherein the processor is configured to, when an electric vehicle for charging a power to a discharged charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected cannot be selected, charge a power to a stationary battery disposed in a same system as a power receiving end to which the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is connected.” Depended upon Claim 1 recites “ a processor configured to select a charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected from among a plurality of chargers and dischargers based on [certain lists].” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of Claim 3 , as two separate recitations of “a charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected” precedes “the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected,” i.e. it is unclear which “charger/discharger” is referenced by “the charger/discharger.” Claim 4 is rejected based on dependency on Claim 3 . Claim 4 recites “ the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected” ( Emphasis added). Depended upon Claim 3 recites “ wherein the processor is configured to, when an electric vehicle for charging a power to a discharged charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected cannot be selected, charge a power to a stationary battery disposed in a same system as a power receiving end to which the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is connected.” Depended upon Claim 1 recites “ a processor configured to select a charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected from among a plurality of chargers and dischargers based on [certain lists].” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of Claim 4 , as two separate recitations of “a charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected” precedes “the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected,” i.e. it is unclear which “charger/discharger” is referenced by “the charger/discharger.” Solely for the purposes of compact prosecution, further Examination herein will interpret “ wherein the processor is configured to, when an electric vehicle for charging a power to a discharged charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected cannot be selected” of Claim 3 as “ wherein the processor is configured to, when an electric vehicle for charging a power to the [(selected)] discharged charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected cannot be selected,” such that the condition of “cannot be selected” references to the selection of “an electric vehicle,” i.e. a selection process separate from selecting the charger/discharger in Claim 1 , which would include a selection similar to steps of S204 and S205 of Fig. 10. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Claims 1-2 recite an apparatus (i.e. a machine or manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-2 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101. Step 2A, Prong One Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “. . . performing maintenance and inspection in VPP, comprising” “. . . select a charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected from among a plurality of chargers and dischargers based on a discharge execution list, in which a time elapsed from a previous discharge with respect to each of the chargers and dischargers, and a charger/discharger state list, which indicates an available state for each of the chargers and dischargers, and update, after charging/discharging by the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected, updates the discharge execution list by adding an execution result of test charge/discharge by the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected.” The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) selecting a charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected based on certain lists containing time elapsed from previous discharge and availability, and (2) updating a list with test results after charging/discharging of the charger/discharger, all of which are: mathematical relationships (i.e. time elapsed from an event ), which are mathematical concepts , an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I, fundamental economic principles or practices (i.e. maintaining and inspecting equipment, which protects against risk, is at least “hedging”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity , an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II and observation (i.e. list of time elapsed from previous charge, list of available states, and execution results of test) and evaluation (i.e. updating the discharge execution list), which are mental processes , an abstract idea , under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the “apparatus” and “processor”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “mathematical relationships,” “fundamental economic principles or practices,” “observations,” and “evaluations,” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) A maintenance and inspection apparatus . . . , comprising (ii) a processor configured to perform operations. The additional elements of (i) a maintenance and inspection apparatus (Fig. 2 and Pages 9-10 shows “The maintenance and inspection apparatus 10 illustrated in Fig. 2 includes a communication unit 11, an input unit 12, a display unit 13, a recording unit 14, and a control unit 15.”) and (ii) processor (Fig. 2 and Page 13 shows “The control unit 15 corresponds to a processor according to the present disclosure. The controller 15 is implemented using a processor having hardware, such as an FPGA, a GPU or a CPU, and memories that are temporary storage used by the processor.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 2 and Pages 9-10 show elements in combination.), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” ( See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, when viewed with the abstract idea in the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide a patent eligible improvement to technology per MPEP 2106.05(a). The (i) maintenance and inspection apparatus and (ii) processor, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 2 and Pages 9-10 show elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) ( See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 2 and Pages 9-10 show elements in combination.), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” ( See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use ( See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements of (i) maintenance and inspection apparatus and (ii) processor, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 2 and Pages 9-10 show elements in combination.), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible. Dependent Claims 2 recite the abstract idea of: “. . . determine whether the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is in a normal state, update, when the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is in the normal state, the discharge execution list by adding the execution result of the test charge/discharge by the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected, and when the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is not in the normal state, change a state of charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected in the charger/discharger state list to unavailable, and record the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected and a date of the test charge/discharge in a maintenance and inspection list.” ( Claim 2 ). Dependent Claim 2 , has been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claim 2 fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations (1) include more information received, (2) display more notification on the web page, and (3) generating flight data. The elements of Claim 2 (i.e. “apparatus” and “processor” of Claim 1 ) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite additional generic computer hardware similar to the generic computer hardware of Claim 1 and generally links the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (i.e. computer environment) just as in Claim 1 . The organization of the further limitations of Claim 2 fails to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1 . Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claim 2 , individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1 . Therefore, Claim 2 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claim 2 fails to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1 . Therefore, Claim 2 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner notes that dependent Claims 3-4 are patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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 nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20240359583-A1 (“ Elkhomri ”) in view of US-20140254050-A1 (“ Haines ”) . Regarding Claim 1 , Elkhomri teaches the “A maintenance and inspection apparatus for performing maintenance and inspection in VPP, comprising a processor” (Fig. 3A, ¶¶26-27, and ¶¶30-34 shows “VPP controller 100” comprises “processor 110.” See also Fig. 5 and ¶¶65-75 showing functionality of “maintenance [and component replacement] schedules,” “reliability reports,” component “status,” ect.) “configured to” “select a charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected from among a plurality of chargers and dischargers” (Fig. 3A and ¶27 shows “The VPP controller 100 connects different power sources and power consumption subsystems. As shown in FIG. 3A, a VPP intelligent grid system 10 includes a power grid 12, a battery storage system 14, an electric vehicle (EV) station 16 [(i.e. a charger/discharger)], a power plant 18, a network 20, and the VPP controller 100.” ¶63 shows that there may be “multiple instances of a single type of component (e.g., a plurality of distributed battery storage systems),” which teaches “a plurality of chargers and dischargers). Fig. 5 shows “Transmit a command based on the power schedule and power condition information” at “560” is based on at least steps “510,” “520,” “530,” “540,” and “550.” Fig. 5 and ¶74 shows “The command may be sent to [e]ach component of the VPP intelligent grid 10 by its corresponding interface of the processor 110 (i.e., . . . , the EV interface 116 controls the controller 16 b of the EV charging station 16, . . .).” Thus, Elkhomri teaches selecting a charger/discharger to issue a command from the plurality of chargers and dischargers. Fig. 5 and ¶¶70-75 shows that the EV charging stations are monitored and controlled in steps “530,” “540,” “550,” and “560,” which teaches that they are “to be maintained and inspected.”) “based on” “a discharge execution list, in which a time elapsed from a previous discharge with respect to each of the chargers and dischargers” (¶72 shows “At 540, the processor 110 determines power condition information [(i.e. a discharge execution list)] for each component of the VPP intelligent grid system 10” including “the EV charging station.” ¶72 further shows “ The power condition information may include a predictive control policy and/or an effective estimation of future dynamics of the corresponding component [ (i.e. with respect to each of the chargers and dischargers) ] over a defined future horizon. . . In one or more embodiments, the power condition information is defined for one or more future horizons (e.g., short-term, medium-term, long-[t]erm).” ¶72 further shows “the power condition information may include current or predicted values of an power output/storage/consumption levels, connection status/type, connection schedule , equipment status (e.g., lifetime estimates), component replacement schedules (e.g., battery or battery cell replacement, solar panel replacement), power conversion efficiency information (e.g., solar conversion estimates based on weather models), user demand predictions, reference power levels (e.g., state of charge of a battery, maximum power grid capacity), price information (e.g., instantaneous electricity prices from one or more providers), etc.” ( Emphasis added). Thus, Elkhomri teaches “a time elapsed from a previous discharge” (i.e. the horizon, dynamic levels, or schedule). Alternatively, the first data set (step “510” in ¶¶66-68) and second data set (step “530” in ¶¶70-71) teaches this limitation.), and “a charger/discharger state list, which indicates an available state for each of the chargers and dischargers” (¶72 shows “At 540, the processor 110 determines power condition information [(i.e. a charger/discharger state list)] for each component of the VPP intelligent grid system 10” including “the EV charging station” (i.e. for each of the chargers and dischargers). ¶72 further shows “the power condition information may include current or predicted values of an power output/storage/consumption levels, connection status/type, connection schedule, equipment status (e.g., lifetime estimates), component replacement schedules (e.g., battery or battery cell replacement, solar panel replacement), power conversion efficiency information (e.g., solar conversion estimates based on weather models), user demand predictions, reference power levels (e.g., state of charge of a battery, maximum power grid capacity), price information (e.g., instantaneous electricity prices from one or more providers), etc.” ( Emphasis added). Thus, Elkhomri teaches “an available state” (i.e. at least connection status/type). Alternatively, the first data set (step “510” in ¶¶66-68) and second data set (step “530” in ¶¶70-71) teaches this limitation.), and “update, after charging/discharging by the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected, updates the discharge execution list by adding an execution result of . . . charge/discharge by the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected” (Fig. 5 and ¶75 shows “Each command issued by the VPP controller 100 adjusts an operation of . . . the EV charging station . . . and generally balance power availability across the VPP intelligent grid system 10. For example, the command may [include] an instruction to the EV charging station 16 to import power to the EV (e.g.,, charge the EV during power surplus periods), pause charging [(i.e. after charging/discharging)], or export power from the EV (e.g., discharge the EV during peak power consumption periods).” ¶70 shows “At 530, the processor 110 obtains a second data set from the components of the VPP intelligent grid system 10.” ¶71 shows “The information in the second data set may be live operational information from each component of the VPP intelligent grid system 10. The operational information may include a current power levels, current connection type/status , equipment status/reliability reports, weather data, or any other appropriate information regarding the current operation of the individual components.” ( Emphasis added). Therefore, by updating the second data set in step “530” with “live” “operational information,” Elkhomri teaches that the “execution results” are updated constantly, including “after charging/discharging” is performed. See also ¶77 showing “Only the first step of the sequence of control actions is executed by the controller on the system until the next sample time, after which the procedure is repeated with new process measurements.” Although Elkhomri teaches a non-limiting examples of operations resulting from a command in ¶75, which could be a part of a “test charge/discharge,” Elkhomri does not explicitly teach that the command includes a “test charge/discharge.”). Elkhomri does not explicitly teach, but Haines teaches that “an execution result of . . . charge/discharge by the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected” includes “an execution result of test charge/discharge by the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected” ( Fig. 1 and ¶84 shows “the EV charging station 10 [(i.e. charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected)] performs a series of self tests using processor 126 and self test module 150. If the self tests pass, the circuit interrupter will be reset automatically and other tests are performed in the reset state. For example, after automatic reset, the processor again tests for overcurrent and ground fault conditions. If the tests pass and none of the fault conditions are present, the circuit interrupter will maintain the reset state. However, if an overcurrent or ground fault current exists, the circuit interrupter immediately will trip. After a pre-determined period of time has elapsed, processor 126 generates a reset signal to automatically reset the circuit interrupter.” ¶99 shows “In accordance with yet another embodiment of the present invention, self test circuit 150 may be configured to test selected components of the device 10. For example, self test circuit 150 may be configured to directly transmit a test signal [(i.e. test charge/discharge)] to the GFCI detector 124 or the trip relay drive 128. This test does not test the differential transformer 120. Other tests may be devised to test for an end of life condition in the grounded neutral transformer 122 or differential transformer 120. By analyzing and comparing a plurality of test outcomes for various tests, processor 126 is able to narrow the location of the fault condition to a particular component or to a subset of components. The results [(i.e. an execution result)] can be displayed via an array of human readable indicia or via modem to a remote repair facility.” See also Fig. 15-20 and ¶¶45-50 showing processing activities and state diagrams for different conditions.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Haines with Elkhomri because Haines teaches that testing an EV charger improves safety of EV charging (¶3, ¶6, ¶9, ¶20, ¶22, ¶24, ¶62-63, and ¶99). Thus, combining Haines with Elkhomri furthers the interest taught in Haines , and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 2 , Elkhomri and Haines teaches “The maintenance and inspection apparatus according to claim 1,” as described above. Elkhomri further teaches: “determine whether the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is in a normal state” ( ¶68 shows “The operational information may include power levels, maintenance schedules, connection type/status (e.g., connected to grid [(i.e. normal state)], disconnected from grid, connected with limited capacity, etc.), reliability reports, weather data, or any other appropriate information regarding the operation of the individual components.” See also ¶71 and ¶77 showing that the “connection type/status” is updated. Therefore, at each update of ¶71 and ¶77, Elkhomri teaches “determine whether the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is in a normal state.”), “update, when the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is in the normal state, the discharge execution list by adding the execution result of the . . . charge/discharge by the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected” ( ¶68 shows “The operational information may include power levels [(i.e. charge/discharge)], maintenance schedules, connection type/status (e.g., connected to grid [(i.e. normal state)], disconnected from grid, connected with limited capacity, etc.), reliability reports, weather data, or any other appropriate information regarding the operation of the individual components.” See also ¶71 and ¶77 showing that the “connection type/status” is updated. Therefore, at each update of ¶71 and ¶77, Elkhomri shows that the power level is updated, which can only occur when the EV charging station is connected to the grid.), and “when the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is not in the normal state, change a state of charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected in the charger/discharger state list to unavailable” ( ¶68 shows “The operational information may include power levels, maintenance schedules, connection type/status (e.g., connected to grid [(i.e. normal state)], disconnected from grid [(i.e. unavailable state)], connected with limited capacity, etc.), reliability reports, weather data, or any other appropriate information regarding the operation of the individual components.” See also ¶71 and ¶77 showing that the “connection type/status” is updated. Therefore, Elkhomri shows that the when the EV charger changes from connected to the grid to disconnected from the grid (i.e. “when the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is not in the normal state”), the “connection type/status” is updated (i.e. “change a state of charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected in the charger/discharger state list to unavailable”).), and “record the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected and a date of the . . . charge/discharge in a maintenance and inspection list” ( ¶68 shows “The operational information may include power levels [(i.e. charge/discharge)], maintenance schedules, connection type/status (e.g., connected to grid, disconnected from grid, connected with limited capacity, etc.), reliability reports, weather data, or any other appropriate information regarding the operation of the individual components.” See also ¶71 and ¶77 showing that the “connection type/status” is updated, i.e. recorded. ¶67 shows that “historical operational information over a predetermined time period” is recorded, including “a first portion of information may provide short-term data (e.g., between one hour to one week), a second portion of information may provide medium-term data (e.g., between one week to one year), and a third portion of information may provide long-term data (e.g., more than one year).” Therefore, Elkhomri teaches that the date is recorded. See also Fig. 2A-2D and ¶¶21-23 showing power management for a timeframe.). Elkhomri does not explicitly teach, but Haines teaches that “. . . charge/discharge” includes “test charge/discharge” ( Fig. 1 and ¶84 shows “the EV charging station 10 [(i.e. charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected)] performs a series of self tests using processor 126 and self test module 150. If the self tests pass, the circuit interrupter will be reset automatically and other tests are performed in the reset state. For example, after automatic reset, the processor again tests for overcurrent and ground fault conditions. If the tests pass and none of the fault conditions are present, the circuit interrupter will maintain the reset state. However, if an overcurrent or ground fault current exists, the circuit interrupter immediately will trip. After a pre-determined period of time has elapsed, processor 126 generates a reset signal to automatically reset the circuit interrupter.” ¶99 shows “In accordance with yet another embodiment of the present invention, self test circuit 150 may be configured to test selected components of the device 10. For example, self test circuit 150 may be configured to directly transmit a test signal [(i.e. test charge/discharge)] to the GFCI detector 124 or the trip relay drive 128. This test does not test the differential transformer 120. Other tests may be devised to test for an end of life condition in the grounded neutral transformer 122 or differential transformer 120. By analyzing and comparing a plurality of test outcomes for various tests, processor 126 is able to narrow the location of the fault condition to a particular component or to a subset of components. The results [(i.e. an execution result)] can be displayed via an array of human readable indicia or via modem to a remote repair facility.” See also Fig. 15-20 and ¶¶45-50 showing processing activities and state diagrams for different conditions.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Haines with Elkhomri because Haines teaches that testing an EV charger improves safety of EV charging (¶3, ¶6, ¶9, ¶20, ¶22, ¶24, ¶62-63, and ¶99). Thus, combining Haines with Elkhomri furthers the interest taught in Haines , and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 3 , Elkhomri and Haines teaches “The maintenance and inspection apparatus according to claim 2,” as described above. Elkhomri further teaches “wherein the processor is configured to, when an electric vehicle for charging a power to a discharged charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected cannot be selected, charge a power to a stationary battery disposed in a same system as a power receiving end to which the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is connected” (Fig. 3A and ¶¶26-28 shows “battery storage system 14” (i.e. stationary battery) and “EV charging station 16.” Fig. 3D and ¶¶51-53 shows “EV charging station 16” includes “EV 17” (i.e. “an electric vehicle”). ¶ 54 shows “[T]he communication link between the controller 16 b and the EV interface 116 of the VPP controller 100 is bidirectional to exchange EV information (e.g., EV power levels, connection type/status information , EV charging price information) and consequent control commands. The EV information may further include a connection schedule (user generated or tracked by the EV terminal 16 a ) for when the EV 17 is expected to be connected to the system . Furthermore, the EV information may include a user-defined amount of power and/or conditions (e.g., price, minimum maintained charge, maximum depth of discharge) under which power is allowed to be extracted from the EV 17 .” ( Emphasis added). Thus, when an EV is disconnected from the grid, it cannot be charged (i.e. cannot be selected). ¶49 shows “The controller 14 b controls a power converter 14 c that facilitates the export and import of power between the battery 14 a and the rest of the VPP intelligent grid system 10. Note, the power flow is bidirectional, due to the possibility to store and release power from/to the VPP intelligent grid system 10 according to instantaneous operating conditions. Further, the communication link between the controller 14 b and the battery storage interface 114 of the VPP controller 100 is bidirectional to exchange battery condition information (e.g., state of charge information, connection type/status information, battery charge cycle number) and consequent control commands.” ¶48 shows “ The battery storage system 14 may be charged from the power grid 12 when the price of electricity is cheaper (i.e., below a reference energy cost) to achieve load leveling and peak shaving in the power grid 12 consumption in a cost effective manner.” Therefore, during a cheap electricity period, if an EV cannot be charged, the system achieves load leveling by charging the battery storage. ). Regarding Claim 4 , Elkhomri and Haines teaches “The maintenance and inspection apparatus according to claim 3,” as described above. Elkhomri further teaches “wherein the processor is configured to perform charging and discharging in a manner that a charge amount and a discharge amount are equal to each other at the power receiving end to which the charger/discharger to be maintained and inspected is connected” (¶75 shows “Each command issued by the VPP controller 100 adjusts an operation of at least one of the power grid, the battery storage system, the EV charging station, and the power plant to reduce power losses, increase power economy, and generally balance power availability across the VPP intelligent grid system 10.” Thus, the command includes balanced power (i.e. charge amount and discharge amount are equal).Fig. 5 and ¶73 shows “At 550, the processor 110 generates a power schedule, based on the VPP simulation model and the power condition information. The power schedule control power exports from each of the power grid 12, the battery storage system 14, the EV charging station 16, and the power plant 18. Furthermore, the power schedule controls power imports into each of the power grid 12, the battery storage system 14, and the EV charging station 16. Note, the power schedule regulates bi-directional power flow for each of the power grid 12, the battery storage system 14, and the EV charging station 16 to balance fluctuating power demand across the system 10 . For example, the unidirectional power flow out of the power plant 18 may be balanced by reducing planned capacity of the power grid 12 during peak solar production periods. In addition, the power schedule may have the battery storage system 14 schedule regular discharges to the EV charging station 16 to free up battery capacity for storing the solar power produced during peak solar production periods. Alternatively, the power schedule may prepare the battery storage system 14, the EV charging station 16, and the power plant 18 for directing all power to be injected into the power grid 12 to satisfy a predicted demand spike or take advantage of market electricity pricing conditions.” ( Emphasis added). ¶73 shows that the power is balanced for each of the components of the grid. ) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is as follows: US-20250149906-A1 (“Manikfan”) shows that Battery systems in a microgrid receive operational instructions from a remote processor, which can include a “test mode” which can result in test certifications or calibrations. US-20220057768-A1 (“Kinoshita”) shows power generation planning and scheduling which includes stop and start times for maintenance or testing. US-20250108717-A1 (“Roostaei”) shows field deployment of smart meters for testing EV chargering. US-20240429740-A1 (“Ali”) shows a distributed energy resource management system that includes EV charging and testing of the distributed energy system. CN-117350507-A (“Zhuang”) shows virtual power plant scheduling that collects data from grid components and predicts when the next fault will occur. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5698 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:30 AM ET to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman , can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4602 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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. /MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 2 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 3 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 4 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 5 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 6 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 7 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 8 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 9 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 10 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 11 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 12 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 13 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 14 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 15 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 16 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 17 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 18 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 19 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 20 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/051,438 Page 21 Art Unit: 3628
Prosecution Insights